ajax wrote:What are you trying to say? A system of thought is organized thought, hence the word system.
The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily. By trying to analyse the conventional as absolute we are taking it to be an attempt to represent reality through concepts. It isn't that, it's a means, not an end.
There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism.
And that being the case doesn't it make the development of moral reasoning all the more important.
If every situation presents unique relative variables, no preparation in moral reasoning is even possible.
Moral reasoning would be unnecessary if everything were static or black and white.
It is taught that our true nature is boundless and embraces everything i.e. compassion. It is taught that it sees no distinction between self and other i.e. love. It is taught that it is completely empty of inherent self-essence i.e. selflessness. Hence, the emphasis on emptiness is not distinct
from morality. Compassion, love and selflessness is the activity of our nature when not obstructed by delusion. Remove delusion, morality arises by itself
. Any other kind of morality is, by definition, contrived.
Eido Roshi is believed to be realized, yet some of his behavior is morally subpar. How can that be if he is realized and has been, as you put it, freed from the delusion and confusion of self vs other?
I'm a pretty confused fellow, so I can't really judge someone else's level of realisation. However, being a roshi doesn't mean you are a Buddha i.e. one who is completely free of delusion. Maybe his ways are beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Maybe he is simply full of shit. Either way, as soon as we pass judgement, he becomes a mirror - which is all a teacher needs to be.
I'm not suggesting that only discernment and moral reasoning be developed. I'm suggesting a fuller expression of Buddhist practice that doesn't over emphasize emptiness and devalue discernment and moral reasoning.
Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.
What you are suggesting depends on the assumption that there is a discerner, a reasoner who is in control of the thought process. When the process of conceptualisation is observed, this is found not to be the case. As long as there is an individual reasoning there is a distinction between self and other. Every subsequent act therefore will be in terms of self-interest. Even if "I" act morally, it is because "I" feel better and validated by doing so. This is not true morality, but self-affirmation. True morality is spontaneous, in my opinion.