jeeprs wrote:tobes wrote:So I think you are slipping between metaphysics and ethics, and failing to see that the normative moments in Buddhist thought - the Vinaya, lay precepts, paramita's etc - cannot be universal moral laws.
I agree that as soon as they are written down or codified they are specifically 'Buddhist'. But I also believe they are based on universal principles. I can't really see why such principles can't be depicted as 'moral laws', and I am surprised (and also a bit dismayed) that word 'moral' is so contentious on this forum.
But I do appreciate your comments on my posts and will continue to think them over.
One issue with Modernity is the separation between epistemology and ethics, where the unchecked functionality of science tends to become a universalized absolute and therefore not only dogmatic, but totally unconcerned with truth, even the truth of its own functioning.
This, "western way of looking at" Buddhist ethics is due to the modernist view of truth remaining within the Platonic definition of abstract universals defining moral absolutes. In other words, although one of the issues of Modernity is the problem of reality being reduced to a process, we still don't seem willing to let go of the idea that one can somehow take a "meta" view, thereby attempting to grasp the whole from a position of the abstracted universal.
Buddhism precisely gives us a way of orienting our "moral" compass from within such a process, but the moment we start formulating an abstract universal we are no longer "doing" Buddhism but instead falling into the same problem of Modernity that Buddhism explicitly rejects as a solution.