And were these people living harmoniously with the environment before the settlers came?
Moral Realism
Re: Moral Realism
Re: Moral Realism
Not according to the Secondary Bodhisattva vows. Apparently, it is possible to kill, rape, and pillage out of compassion and without any ill will.
The question is whether the law of kamma is merely a metalaw, or whether is there any more practical detail to it.It is the underlying intention to perform the activity that, when followed through, actually produces the demerit associated with the activity.
Does intentional killing always produce demerit, or is it sometimes meritorious?
Does this depend on whether the killer believed to have good, righteous intentions for the killing?
In a Buddhist kammic context, moral realism or moral objectivism means that the cause and effect relationship between one's intentions for an action and the kammic effects of one's action happen with a regularity over which one has no control, but which is instead a given, a matter of "how this universe works". In this sense, moral objectivism means that something cannot be good or bad merely on account that one has declared it that way.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: Moral Realism
That interpretation is specific to Tibetan Buddhism and Tantric Buddhism. It's not shared outside of that setting. Generally, in Chinese and Korean Buddhism, in pretty much all non-Tantric Buddhism, such an interpretation of bodhisattvaśīla is generally considered nonsense.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Moral Realism
Although the arahant don't change their behavior, we know they transcend morality anyway. This means that morality should not be understood as objective.
«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?
They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»
- Snp 4.5 -
-
cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Moral Realism
Yes but they were not of this teaching
Re: Moral Realism
Being free of the āsavā is a wholesome state, isn't it?AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:50 pmAlthough the arahant don't change their behavior, we know they transcend morality anyway. This means that morality should not be understood as objective.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Moral Realism
Wholesomeness is different from good, especially from the absolute Good preached by many religions. Only the absolute Good would be objective, if it existed.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:36 pmBeing free of the āsavā is a wholesome state, isn't it?AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:50 pmAlthough the arahant don't change their behavior, we know they transcend morality anyway. This means that morality should not be understood as objective.
«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?
They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»
- Snp 4.5 -
Re: Moral Realism
Did the Buddha make such a distinction? Nibbāna is an absolute good, is it not?AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:03 pm
Wholesomeness is different from good, especially from the absolute Good preached by many religions. Only the absolute Good would be objective, if it existed.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Moral Realism
The Buddha distinguished between kusala and puñña. He never defined nibbāna as an absolute Good.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:04 pmDid the Buddha make such a distinction? Nibbāna is an absolute good, is it not?AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:03 pm
Wholesomeness is different from good, especially from the absolute Good preached by many religions. Only the absolute Good would be objective, if it existed.
«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?
They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»
- Snp 4.5 -
Re: Moral Realism
I don't think that is quite rightAlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pmThe Buddha distinguished between kusala and puñña. He never defined nibbāna as an absolute Good.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:04 pmDid the Buddha make such a distinction? Nibbāna is an absolute good, is it not?AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:03 pm
Wholesomeness is different from good, especially from the absolute Good preached by many religions. Only the absolute Good would be objective, if it existed.
https://suttacentral.net/define/kusalakusala
(adj.) clever, skilful, expert; good, right, meritorious MN.i.226; Dhp.44; Ja.i.222 Esp. appl. in moral sense (= puñña)
It seems to me that for the Buddha the universe is fundamentally a moral universe. Good and bad really exist, and good and bad actions have definite consequences. If good and bad exist, I suppose dhammas really exist too.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Moral Realism
The Buddha doesn't speak in terms of existence and non-existence.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: Moral Realism
Are you sure about that?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Moral Realism
See puññapāpapahīnassa.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:33 pmI don't think that is quite rightAlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pmThe Buddha distinguished between kusala and puñña. He never defined nibbāna as an absolute Good.
https://suttacentral.net/define/kusalakusala
(adj.) clever, skilful, expert; good, right, meritorious MN.i.226; Dhp.44; Ja.i.222 Esp. appl. in moral sense (= puñña)
It seems to me that for the Buddha the universe is fundamentally a moral universe. Good and bad really exist, and good and bad actions have definite consequences. If good and bad exist, I suppose dhammas really exist too.
«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?
They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»
- Snp 4.5 -
Re: Moral Realism
This means you have a sutta where he explains that things do exist, right? Shoot. Show your sutta quote.
In my understanding, one who has fully understood, stops seeing the world as a dichotomy of existence/non-existence. That's the whole point of cessation, of fully understanding, ok?
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: Moral Realism
That doesn't mean they don't exist.AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:55 pmSee puññapāpapahīnassa.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:33 pmI don't think that is quite rightAlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:08 pm
The Buddha distinguished between kusala and puñña. He never defined nibbāna as an absolute Good.
https://suttacentral.net/define/kusalakusala
(adj.) clever, skilful, expert; good, right, meritorious MN.i.226; Dhp.44; Ja.i.222 Esp. appl. in moral sense (= puñña)
It seems to me that for the Buddha the universe is fundamentally a moral universe. Good and bad really exist, and good and bad actions have definite consequences. If good and bad exist, I suppose dhammas really exist too.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”