Buddhist morality

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Is there a major difference between morality as a part of the 8NFP and worldly moral systems? if so, what is it?
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Natan »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:25 am Is there a major difference between morality as a part of the 8NFP and worldly moral systems? if so, what is it?
There are no prohibitions or mandates here . There are only warnings about consequências of certain conduct.
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7065
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Kim O'Hara »

It depends a bit on what you mean by "worldly moral systems" but in general I would say there's no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged, although there are differences in the reasons given.
All major religions essentially tell their followers to be nice to each other. That is spelt out in terms of truthfulness, honesty, kindness, generosity, peacefulness, etc - and with variations according to the society that developed the rules. One wife or two? Eat pork or not? These are local rules.

Rationalists and humanists will argue that any society needs rules like this if it is to survive, let alone flourish, so there's a Darwinian aspect to them. That is, societies with good (altruistic) rules survive and others don't, so that after a few hundred years all societies will have altruistic rules.

:namaste:
Kim
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Crazywisdom wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:31 am There are no prohibitions or mandates here . There are only warnings about consequências of certain conduct.
Thank you :namaste:

This is indeed a noticeable difference. Prohibitions or mandates though are understood in reference to future consequences.

Could you please elaborate more on the significance of this difference?
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Fortyeightvows »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:57 am
Crazywisdom wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:31 am There are no prohibitions or mandates here . There are only warnings about consequências of certain conduct.
Thank you :namaste:

This is indeed a noticeable difference. Prohibitions or mandates though are understood in reference to future consequences.

Could you please elaborate more on the significance of this difference?
It's a distinction without a difference.
If you aren't a westerner then its the same thing
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am It depends a bit on what you mean by "worldly moral systems" but in general I would say there's no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged, although there are differences in the reasons given.
All major religions essentially tell their followers to be nice to each other. That is spelt out in terms of truthfulness, honesty, kindness, generosity, peacefulness, etc - and with variations according to the society that developed the rules. One wife or two? Eat pork or not? These are local rules.

Rationalists and humanists will argue that any society needs rules like this if it is to survive, let alone flourish, so there's a Darwinian aspect to them. That is, societies with good (altruistic) rules survive and others don't, so that after a few hundred years all societies will have altruistic rules.

:namaste:
Kim
We, as Buddhists, give the Buddha and his teachings special status through perceiving them as "transcendental" hence my reference to other moral systems as "worldly". The Buddha taught using our language, but our ability to grasp the deeper meanings of his teachings depends on where are we on the path. For example, morality is relevant to social beings who feel, but i am not sure if this description is applicable to the lord Buddha. It could be naive to interpret his character through the lens of our motivations to be moral, but we can use it to reflect and better understand our limitations.

I hope the above makes sense.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Fortyeightvows wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:05 am It's a distinction without a difference.
I admit that Buddhist morality being "different" is assumed here as a hypothesis.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Fortyeightvows »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:14 amI admit that Buddhist morality being "different" is assumed here as a hypothesis.
sorry I think I miss read the post.

Buddhist morality is definitely very different than secular morality.
And it

"There are no prohibitions or mandates here . There are only warnings about consequências of certain conduct." this is the part that I meant when I say there is no difference.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Natan »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:57 am
Crazywisdom wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:31 am There are no prohibitions or mandates here . There are only warnings about consequências of certain conduct.
Thank you :namaste:

This is indeed a noticeable difference. Prohibitions or mandates though are understood in reference to future consequences.

Could you please elaborate more on the significance of this difference?
Here the consequence is karmic meant to mean not a result imposed by an ouside agent.
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Fortyeightvows wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:20 am
Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:14 amI admit that Buddhist morality being "different" is assumed here as a hypothesis.
sorry I think I miss read the post.

Buddhist morality is definitely very different than secular morality.
And it

"There are no prohibitions or mandates here . There are only warnings about consequências of certain conduct." this is the part that I meant when I say there is no difference.
What are the other differences? For example, Kim mentioned that there's no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged. To what extent this is accidental?
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Fortyeightvows »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:25 am What are the other differences? For example, Kim mentioned that there's no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged. To what extent this is accidental?
Well, first off, I don't think that part is true at all that no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged.
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Fortyeightvows wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:26 am Well, first off, I don't think that part is true at all that no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged.
My bad, i quoted Kim without providing the full context. He elaborated further:
All major religions essentially tell their followers to be nice to each other. That is spelt out in terms of truthfulness, honesty, kindness, generosity, peacefulness, etc - and with variations according to the society that developed the rules. One wife or two? Eat pork or not? These are local rules.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Fortyeightvows »

that posts says "all religions", but the question wasn't one religion's morality vs another religion's morality.
The question was buddhist morality vs secular morality
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Fortyeightvows wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:32 am that posts says "all religions", but the question wasn't one religion's morality vs another religion's morality.
The question was buddhist morality vs secular morality
I mentioned worldly moral systems which includes other religions, or at least, naive interpretations of religion.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

The sole purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to provide a path towards the goal of full awakening, free from suffering and liberation from samsara. All the do’s and don’ts in Buddhism ultimately serve one function: to keep the practitioner focused on that path. Killing, lying, stealing, misconduct, and so on, they lead one away from the path to that goal.

Actions of body, speech and mind, which are referred to in the eightfold path, have positive or negative consequences. Following the eightfold path means that your actions will propel you further in the right direction. Contrary actions result in delays, distractions, and obstacles.

Aside from that, there is no absolute moral right and wrong within the illusion of our samsaric existence. Karma is often thought of as some cosmic system of rewards and punishments, but this isn’t part of Buddhism.

Theistic systems, those employed by various religions, rationalize morality based on judgement from gods. Secular systems, those employed by secular governments, base morality on a variety of secular criteria. But in Buddhism, it’s pretty much a road map to full awakening, which one can choose to either follow or ignore. If you follow the path set out by the buddha, then you are practicing the Dharma. If you aren’t, then even if you call yourself a Buddhist, you’ve wandered off a bit.
...
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7065
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Kim O'Hara »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:10 am
Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am It depends a bit on what you mean by "worldly moral systems" but in general I would say there's no fundamental difference in what is encouraged and discouraged, although there are differences in the reasons given.
All major religions essentially tell their followers to be nice to each other. That is spelt out in terms of truthfulness, honesty, kindness, generosity, peacefulness, etc - and with variations according to the society that developed the rules. One wife or two? Eat pork or not? These are local rules.

Rationalists and humanists will argue that any society needs rules like this if it is to survive, let alone flourish, so there's a Darwinian aspect to them. That is, societies with good (altruistic) rules survive and others don't, so that after a few hundred years all societies will have altruistic rules.

:namaste:
Kim
We, as Buddhists, give the Buddha and his teachings special status through perceiving them as "transcendental" hence my reference to other moral systems as "worldly". The Buddha taught using our language, but our ability to grasp the deeper meanings of his teachings depends on where are we on the path. For example, morality is relevant to social beings who feel, but i am not sure if this description is applicable to the lord Buddha. It could be naive to interpret his character through the lens of our motivations to be moral, but we can use it to reflect and better understand our limitations.

I hope the above makes sense.
The bit I have made bold is what I was pointing to when I said, "there are differences in the reasons given." I could have gone a bit further with that.

Going back to the rationalists and humanists' viewpoint, we could suggest that societies need good moral rules to survive. We also know that lots of people won't follow such rules without some social pressure (jail, expulsion, etc) or reward (more food, respect, etc) - i.e. the stick and the carrot that keep the donkey going.
Now, if a religion builds these rules into its teachings, the society has another big stick (eternal damnation, rebirth as a hungry ghost, etc) and another big carrot (paradise after death, etc) which will help its society survive. Once again, evolutionary pressures come into play, because the religions which survive and flourish will (often) be the ones with (most of) these moral teachings.
:meditate:
Does this mean that the Buddha was not transcendent? Not at all. Does it mean that Jesus was not the Son of God? Not at all. Those questions are basically quite different from the common morality teachings, which are good (and important) foundations for anything less mundane.

:namaste:
Kim
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:39 pm The sole purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to provide a path towards the goal of full awakening, free from suffering and liberation from samsara. All the do’s and don’ts in Buddhism ultimately serve one function: to keep the practitioner focused on that path. Killing, lying, stealing, misconduct, and so on, they lead one away from the path to that goal.

Actions of body, speech and mind, which are referred to in the eightfold path, have positive or negative consequences. Following the eightfold path means that your actions will propel you further in the right direction. Contrary actions result in delays, distractions, and obstacles.

Aside from that, there is no absolute moral right and wrong within the illusion of our samsaric existence. Karma is often thought of as some cosmic system of rewards and punishments, but this isn’t part of Buddhism.

Theistic systems, those employed by various religions, rationalize morality based on judgement from gods. Secular systems, those employed by secular governments, base morality on a variety of secular criteria. But in Buddhism, it’s pretty much a road map to full awakening, which one can choose to either follow or ignore. If you follow the path set out by the buddha, then you are practicing the Dharma. If you aren’t, then even if you call yourself a Buddhist, you’ve wandered off a bit.
...
Do you think avoiding harm and doing good being part of the path to full awakening accidental?

I am asking the above question because of the analogy of the path itself. For example, if you want to instruct me on how to go from point A to point B, you simply give directions without describing them as good or bad. The path can be described as good to the extent it delivers you to the desired destination, but the path itself is morally neutral.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:49 pm The bit I have made bold is what I was pointing to when I said, "there are differences in the reasons given." I could have gone a bit further with that.

Going back to the rationalists and humanists' viewpoint, we could suggest that societies need good moral rules to survive. We also know that lots of people won't follow such rules without some social pressure (jail, expulsion, etc) or reward (more food, respect, etc) - i.e. the stick and the carrot that keep the donkey going.
Now, if a religion builds these rules into its teachings, the society has another big stick (eternal damnation, rebirth as a hungry ghost, etc) and another big carrot (paradise after death, etc) which will help its society survive. Once again, evolutionary pressures come into play, because the religions which survive and flourish will (often) be the ones with (most of) these moral teachings.
:meditate:
Does this mean that the Buddha was not transcendent? Not at all. Does it mean that Jesus was not the Son of God? Not at all. Those questions are basically quite different from the common morality teachings, which are good (and important) foundations for anything less mundane.

:namaste:
Kim
Thanks for the explanation. :namaste:

As you said, the fact that the inclusion of reward and punishment in religious teachings helps it to survive does not necessarily negate the possibility of it being transcendent, but in a way makes recognizing it from the mundane unclear.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:52 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:39 pm The sole purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to provide a path towards the goal of full awakening, free from suffering and liberation from samsara. All the do’s and don’ts in Buddhism ultimately serve one function: to keep the practitioner focused on that path. Killing, lying, stealing, misconduct, and so on, they lead one away from the path to that goal.

Actions of body, speech and mind, which are referred to in the eightfold path, have positive or negative consequences. Following the eightfold path means that your actions will propel you further in the right direction. Contrary actions result in delays, distractions, and obstacles.

Aside from that, there is no absolute moral right and wrong within the illusion of our samsaric existence. Karma is often thought of as some cosmic system of rewards and punishments, but this isn’t part of Buddhism.

Theistic systems, those employed by various religions, rationalize morality based on judgement from gods. Secular systems, those employed by secular governments, base morality on a variety of secular criteria. But in Buddhism, it’s pretty much a road map to full awakening, which one can choose to either follow or ignore. If you follow the path set out by the buddha, then you are practicing the Dharma. If you aren’t, then even if you call yourself a Buddhist, you’ve wandered off a bit.
...
Do you think avoiding harm and doing good being part of the path to full awakening accidental?

I am asking the above question because of the analogy of the path itself. For example, if you want to instruct me on how to go from point A to point B, you simply give directions without describing them as good or bad. The path can be described as good to the extent it delivers you to the desired destination, but the path itself is morally neutral.
I think that the motivations behind harmful actions of body, speech and mind, if you trace them back, if there is some malicious intent, this is ultimately a manifestation of self-grasping. Of course, this is not always the case. A mother or father who kills a rat or scorpion or wasp, something that suddenly is near their baby, for example, is not motivated by self-grasping (although some Buddhists would prefer to capture the animal alive and release it elsewhere). Likewise, one might lie in order to protects an innocent person from harm. This reminds me of the scene in The Sound of Music where the nuns confess to the “sin” of having yanked the wires out of the car belonging to the Nazis.

I think the eightfold path is intended towards improving a general trend in one’s behavior, as best as one is able to do, in order to help one apply a mindful approach, rather than being an absolute “eating pork is strictly forbidden” type of rule as is found in some religions. So, “right actions” are those things which are not motivated by self-grasping. Or, one might say that all “wrong actions” are those that are motivated by self grasping.
It just so happens that things like killing, stealing, lying, are generally motivated by self-grasping.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Cinnabar
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Cinnabar »

In my tradition it is said that ethics are natural.

Take killing. It’s always a sin. One doesn’t have to assume a religion, like become a Buddhist, for that to be so. Or to take vows, like the pratimoksha, for that to be so.

The difference between Buddhist morality and worldly morality is the wisdom that understands the basis of negative actions really everyone agrees upon. As we take the three sets of vows that understanding becomes more and more fine, subtle. For one, through understanding dependent origination.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethical Conduct”