Buddhist morality

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:49 pm 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.
It can be understood why evil is a sign or manifestation of self-grasping, but it is more difficult to understand why good is any less manifestation of self grasping.

Take romance as an example. It does not manifest itself as ill intent, and while its motivated by sensuality, it is often associated with good feelings.

On the other hand, to take the example of the Nazis, they justified their evil actions as the courage of going with the ways of nature, which is selfless and the highest virtue of all!

It seems to me that as long as there is an intent or motivation to begin with, the concept of self-grasping becomes so malleable that the human mind can use it to justify anything.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:04 pm 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.
Having natural basis to ethics does not come without its problems. One can think of homophobia as an appeal to what is natural.

Both good and evil can be viewed as a manifestation of nature. On the other hand, one interpretation of the dharma is "the way of nature". How can the way of nature be preferring one over the other considering the interdependence between the two is not easy to understand.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Cinnabar
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Cinnabar »

In my dharma tradition it is said that ethics are “natural” because actions universally cause suffering. Killing causes suffering because of dependent origination. Not because I broke a vow not to kill.

I made, in no place, an argument to “the way of nature”.
Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:18 pm
Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:04 pm 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.
Having natural basis to ethics does not come without its problems. One can think of homophobia as an appeal to what is natural.

Both good and evil can be viewed as a manifestation of nature. On the other hand, one interpretation of the dharma is "the way of nature". How can the way of nature be preferring one over the other considering the interdependence between the two is not easy to understand.
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:28 pm In my dharma tradition it is said that ethics are “natural” because actions universally cause suffering. Killing causes suffering because of dependent origination. Not because I broke a vow not to kill.
Framing the teachings through dependent origination does not divide action into good and evil, ignorance being the root cause. Other aspects of the teachings speaks explicitly of good and evil, but not DO.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Cinnabar
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Cinnabar »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:36 pm
Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:28 pm In my dharma tradition it is said that ethics are “natural” because actions universally cause suffering. Killing causes suffering because of dependent origination. Not because I broke a vow not to kill.
Framing the teachings through dependent origination does not divide action into good and evil, ignorance being the root cause. Other aspects of the teachings speaks explicitly of good and evil, but not DO.
The OP was about the difference between Buddhist and worldly ethics. I started with the thesis that ethics are "natural" in that actions naturally lead to suffering through dependent origination. Not through something magic that happens according to their religion or abscence thereof. Buddhists and worldly people are absolutely no different in this regard. Negative actions cause suffering. I made the assertion that the main difference between Buddhists and worldly ethics then are a more refined view of ethics through an understanding of dependent origination. From that come the three sets of vows, confession, and so on. And yes, from dependent origination we understand what is good and evil. Really from dependent origination all of dharma comes out if we really understand it.

So IMHO that's the difference between Buddhist and worldly ethics. An understanding of dependent origination.
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7047
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Kim O'Hara »

Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:42 pm ...So IMHO that's the difference between Buddhist and worldly ethics. An understanding of dependent origination.
In my terms, that is a difference in the reasons given for the rules for virtuous behaviour.
Again, that does not mean that the reasons are wrong, just that they are somewhat independent of the rules themselves.

:coffee:
Kim
Cinnabar
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Cinnabar »

It is more than just the reasons given.

If a deity speaks and says “don’t kill people”, then I just have a rule.

If I understand dependent origination, including how killing happens and what the consequences are— then I have much more than a rule. I know the source of killing is one of the three poisons, so I mind especially my anger. I know killing requires identifying a target, so I start to stop hating people, othering them. I know killing takes a plan, so I start curbing murderous fantasies. Maybe I get rid of my weapons.

If I understand dependent origination then I know the basis of compassion, so I know how abstaining from harming relates to helping. So I don’t just not kill people. I try to protect their lives. I take people in, scare off dangerous animals, speak against war, the death penalty. Feed them, heal them. All an extension.

The guy who heard the god say “don’t kill people” may have no causal understanding of what I say is “natural” morality. God said don’t kill. But I didn’t. The lions did when I threw those people in the coliseum. I didn’t kill them, they froze to death when I put them outside. I can torture this enemy and break them then god is OK as long as I don’t kill him.

Buddhist morality is superior in that dependent origination connects causes and effects.

A big consequence of dependent origination is knowing phenomena to be empty. And so Buddhists can engage in morality with attachment to self and object and even doing. That adds great wisdom on ethical behavior.
Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:08 pm
Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:42 pm ...So IMHO that's the difference between Buddhist and worldly ethics. An understanding of dependent origination.
In my terms, that is a difference in the reasons given for the rules for virtuous behaviour.
Again, that does not mean that the reasons are wrong, just that they are somewhat independent of the rules themselves.

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:09 pm
It can be understood why evil is a sign or manifestation of self-grasping, but it is more difficult to understand why good is any less manifestation of self grasping.

Take romance as an example. It does not manifest itself as ill intent, and while its motivated by sensuality, it is often associated with good feelings.

On the other hand, to take the example of the Nazis, they justified their evil actions as the courage of going with the ways of nature, which is selfless and the highest virtue of all!

It seems to me that as long as there is an intent or motivation to begin with, the concept of self-grasping becomes so malleable that the human mind can use it to justify anything.
Ultimately, everything we engage in, positive, negative, or otherwise, even practicing Dharma, we do because we think it will bring some kind of benefit to oneself or to others. In that respect, sure. Karma is always at work. A lot of people who engage wholeheartedly in Dharma are also on a huge ego trip about it as well.

Perhaps the Buddha was figuring on people having a guilty conscience. There’s also an element of “do unto others as you’d want them to do unto you” about the eightfold path.

But as I mentioned, it’s all about keeping you focused on the path. It may be harder for most to do an hour of calm sitting meditation after killing someone than it would be after baking a batch of cookies, even though, if they smell good, sitting without distraction might also be a challenge.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:18 pm
Both good and evil can be viewed as a manifestation of nature. On the other hand, one interpretation of the dharma is "the way of nature". How can the way of nature be preferring one over the other considering the interdependence between the two is not easy to understand.
“Dharma” is a Sanskrit word that specifically means law, or something established. Perhaps you are thinking of “Tao” 道 which means “way (of)”.

Buddhist theory doesn’t regard good and evil as manifestations of nature (not exactly sure what that means). Rather, they are concepts that are mutually dependent on each other.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7047
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Kim O'Hara »

Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:49 pm ... 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.
...
:namaste:
Kim
Quoting myself because I've just come across a beautifully appropriate example of the "big stick" -
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13440589
BANGKOK--Gruesome depictions in Buddhist temples of hell's torments are no laughing matter in this country dubbed the "Land of Smiles" for its gentle ways.

Numerous temples in predominantly Buddhist Thailand are adorned with images of the eternal damnation promised for those who transgress the religion's teachings.

With its elegant prayer hall, sweeping roofs and magnificent murals, Wat Suthat is regarded as one of the most popular temples in Bangkok. A pillar tucked behind its renowned golden Buddha bears an image of 17 hapless individuals being consigned to hellish eternity in a caldron of boiling water.

The image also shows another person about to face the same fate in the writhing mass of screams. On closer inspection, it is human limbs, not firewood, that are stoking the flames. ...
:reading:
Kim
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

Kim O'Hara wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:36 pm
Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:49 pm ... 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.
...
:namaste:
Kim
Quoting myself because I've just come across a beautifully appropriate example of the "big stick" -
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13440589
BANGKOK--Gruesome depictions in Buddhist temples of hell's torments are no laughing matter in this country dubbed the "Land of Smiles" for its gentle ways.

Numerous temples in predominantly Buddhist Thailand are adorned with images of the eternal damnation promised for those who transgress the religion's teachings.

With its elegant prayer hall, sweeping roofs and magnificent murals, Wat Suthat is regarded as one of the most popular temples in Bangkok. A pillar tucked behind its renowned golden Buddha bears an image of 17 hapless individuals being consigned to hellish eternity in a caldron of boiling water.

The image also shows another person about to face the same fate in the writhing mass of screams. On closer inspection, it is human limbs, not firewood, that are stoking the flames. ...
:reading:
Kim
It is interesting to contemplate what "survives" according to evolutionary theory of ethics and religion. Had religion worked perfectly in making people behave through the stick and carrot, we would probably have reached moral perfection and epistemological certainty in relation to moral issue by now which would make the need for further evolution redundant. A state of "imperfection" is necessary to justify an evolutionary view of time, and it is coherent with the Arahant archetype who reached a state of perfection hence ended the evolutionary circle of death and rebirth.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:05 pm
Kim O'Hara wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:36 pm
Kim O'Hara wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:49 pm ... 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.
...
:namaste:
Kim
Quoting myself because I've just come across a beautifully appropriate example of the "big stick" -
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13440589
BANGKOK--Gruesome depictions in Buddhist temples of hell's torments are no laughing matter in this country dubbed the "Land of Smiles" for its gentle ways.

Numerous temples in predominantly Buddhist Thailand are adorned with images of the eternal damnation promised for those who transgress the religion's teachings.

With its elegant prayer hall, sweeping roofs and magnificent murals, Wat Suthat is regarded as one of the most popular temples in Bangkok. A pillar tucked behind its renowned golden Buddha bears an image of 17 hapless individuals being consigned to hellish eternity in a caldron of boiling water.

The image also shows another person about to face the same fate in the writhing mass of screams. On closer inspection, it is human limbs, not firewood, that are stoking the flames. ...
:reading:
Kim
It is interesting to contemplate what "survives" according to evolutionary theory of ethics and religion. Had religion worked perfectly in making people behave through the stick and carrot, we would probably have reached moral perfection and epistemological certainty in relation to moral issue by now which would make the need for further evolution redundant. A state of "imperfection" is necessary to justify an evolutionary view of time, and it is coherent with the Arahant archetype who reached a state of perfection hence ended the evolutionary circle of death and rebirth.

1. Since new people are born all the time, the same lessons must be learned over and over again. Hence, there is no such thing as a given point in time, even hypothetically, when some kind of perfect morality within a society is reached. A rag can work perfectly for wiping away dust. It, in itself, is perfect. That doesn’t mean that more dust won’t accumulate again tomorrow. But to eliminate the source of the dust, likewise, to cut off the roots of samsaric rebirth, that’s the function of practicing the Buddhist eightfold path. It can work for those who employ it. The fact that most choose not to does not mean the path itself is flawed. This path has ‘survived’ for some 2,600 years.

2. carrot and stick, heavens and hell realms, no experience of these occurs outside of the mind.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:19 pm 1. Since new people are born all the time, the same lessons must be learned over and over again. Hence, there is no such thing as a given point in time, even hypothetically, when some kind of perfect morality within a society is reached. A rag can work perfectly for wiping away dust. It, in itself, is perfect. That doesn’t mean that more dust won’t accumulate again tomorrow. But to eliminate the source of the dust, likewise, to cut off the roots of samsaric rebirth, that’s the function of practicing the Buddhist eightfold path. It can work for those who employ it. The fact that most choose not to does not mean the path itself is flawed. This path has ‘survived’ for some 2,600 years.

2. carrot and stick, heavens and hell realms, no experience of these occurs outside of the mind.
It can be equally argued that once the lesson is learned, it does not have to be repeated again and again. Once the source of the dust is eliminated, there is no need for a perfect (or otherwise) rag. More generally, this was a response to an evolutionary model of time, which seems to be common and accepted by many at this point of history. Before Darwin, evolution was not discovered/fabricated hence time was not explained through Darwinian evolutionary theory. That does not necessarily make incompatible with the Buddha's teaching or the eightfold path. it is simply a theory with explanatory power in time, similar to the path analogy/theory in that respect.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:50 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:19 pm 1. Since new people are born all the time, the same lessons must be learned over and over again. Hence, there is no such thing as a given point in time, even hypothetically, when some kind of perfect morality within a society is reached. A rag can work perfectly for wiping away dust. It, in itself, is perfect. That doesn’t mean that more dust won’t accumulate again tomorrow. But to eliminate the source of the dust, likewise, to cut off the roots of samsaric rebirth, that’s the function of practicing the Buddhist eightfold path. It can work for those who employ it. The fact that most choose not to does not mean the path itself is flawed. This path has ‘survived’ for some 2,600 years.

2. carrot and stick, heavens and hell realms, no experience of these occurs outside of the mind.
It can be equally argued that once the lesson is learned, it does not have to be repeated again and again. Once the source of the dust is eliminated, there is no need for a perfect (or otherwise) rag. More generally, this was a response to an evolutionary model of time, which seems to be common and accepted by many at this point of history. Before Darwin, evolution was not discovered/fabricated hence time was not explained through Darwinian evolutionary theory. That does not necessarily make incompatible with the Buddha's teaching or the eightfold path. it is simply a theory with explanatory power in time, similar to the path analogy/theory in that respect.
...learned by who, exactly?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:21 pm ...learned by who, exactly?
To whoever you had in mind when you used the word "learned".

The significance of your question is not clear though.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:53 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:21 pm ...learned by who, exactly?
To whoever you had in mind when you used the word "learned".

The significance of your question is not clear though.
Well, you wrote, “... It is interesting to contemplate what "survives" according to evolutionary theory of ethics and religion. Had religion worked perfectly in making people behave through the stick and carrot, we would probably have reached moral perfection...”

And what I’m saying is that this moral behavior has to be learned anew with each generation. It isn’t evolutionary like developing opposable thumbs.

Within that context, I’m replying to your statement,
“... It can be equally argued that once the lesson is learned, it does not have to be repeated again and again.”

... because I think it does, which is why teachings are called teachings and are handed down from teacherS to students.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Bundokji
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Bundokji »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:13 pm Well, you wrote, “... It is interesting to contemplate what "survives" according to evolutionary theory of ethics and religion. Had religion worked perfectly in making people behave through the stick and carrot, we would probably have reached moral perfection...”

And what I’m saying is that this moral behavior has to be learned anew with each generation. It isn’t evolutionary like developing opposable thumbs.

Within that context, I’m replying to your statement,
“... It can be equally argued that once the lesson is learned, it does not have to be repeated again and again.”

... because I think it does, which is why teachings are called teachings and are handed down from teacherS to students.
I see, hence we are not in disagreement. Whatever survives is still a state of imperfection needing to learn moral behavior anew.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
Manwon
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:30 pm

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Manwon »

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?
To me kindness, honesty, along with others expressions that warrant merit are a basis of any system of morality! As human beings most have been taught right from wrong throughout our lives. For me this wasn't based upon an organized religious belief system, it was simply based upon the social norms of the society I grew up in. I married a Korean Women in 1986, and that was my first experience with the Philosophy of Buddhism, and over time my understanding and acceptance of Buddhist doctrine and philosophy grew.

As I began to walk the Center path hand in hand with studying the dharma I found that the basic moral values I already held where not out of line with Buddhist teaching for the most part. The main factor that I had never considered was that our actions are part of larger Universal system of balance that is known as Karma. When we reach our current bodies expiration date either by natural or causes beyond our control Karma has a direct effect on next reincarnation or state consciousness and how long it may take us to reach that point.

Every time we transition to our next state of consciousness or our next reincarnation our actions in our previous state will have a direct effect upon us based upon our Karma alone. Based upon our Karma we will progress along our path, we don't move on the path, or we move backward on our path. This is where and how Buddhist Morality comes into our lives in a positive or negative way, to me in the end basic social norms, and basic morality are in the same thing and our Karma shows us if we have met or failed the challenge.

:namaste:
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Aemilius »

Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:04 pm 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.
That has not been always so, it is a fairly recent and new development in humanity. Before the normal rule was Feud or Vendetta:

"A feud /fjuːd/, referred to in more extreme cases as a blood feud, vendetta, faida, clan war, gang war, or private war, is a long-running argument or fight, often between social groups of people, especially families or clans. Feuds begin because one party (correctly or incorrectly) perceives itself to have been attacked, insulted, wronged, or otherwise injured by another. Intense feelings of resentment trigger the initial retribution, which causes the other party to feel equally aggrieved and vengeful. The dispute is subsequently fuelled by a long-running cycle of retaliatory violence. This continual cycle of provocation and retaliation makes it extremely difficult to end the feud peacefully. Feuds frequently involving the original parties' family members or associates, could last for generations, and may result in extreme acts of violence. They can be interpreted as an extreme outgrowth of social relations based in family honor.

Until the early modern period, feuds were considered legitimate legal instruments and were regulated to some degree. For example, Montenegrin culture calls this krvna osveta, meaning "blood revenge", which had unspoken, but highly valued rules. In tribal societies, the blood feud, coupled with the practice of blood wealth, functioned as an effective form of social control for limiting and ending conflicts between individuals and groups who are related by kinship, as described by anthropologist Max Gluckman in his article "The Peace in the Feud" in 1955."

Blood feuds

"A blood feud is a feud with a cycle of retaliatory violence, with the relatives or associates of someone who has been killed or otherwise wronged or dishonored seeking vengeance by killing or otherwise physically punishing the culprits or their relatives. In the English-speaking world, the Italian word vendetta is used to mean a blood feud; in Italian, however, it simply means (personal) "vengeance" or "revenge", originating from the Latin vindicta (vengeance), while the word faida would be more appropriate for a blood feud. In the English-speaking world, "vendetta" is sometimes extended to mean any other long-standing feud, not necessarily involving bloodshed. Sometimes it is not mutual, but rather refers to a prolonged series of hostile acts waged by one person against another without reciprocation."

"The Celtic phenomenon of the blood feud demanded "an eye for an eye," and usually descended into murder. Disagreements between clans might last for generations in Scotland and Ireland.

"In Scandinavia in Viking era, feuds were common, as the lack of a central government left dealing with disputes up to the individuals or families involved. Sometimes these would descend into "blood revenges", and in some cases devastating whole families. The ravages of the feuds as well as the dissolution of them is a central theme in several of the Icelandic sagas. An alternative to feud was blood money (or weregild in the Norse culture), which demanded set value to be paid by those responsible for a wrongful permanent disfigurement or death, even if accidental. If these payments were not made, or were refused by the offended party, a blood feud could ensue.

Feuds in 19th century rural USA

"Due to the Celtic heritage of many people living in Appalachia, a series of prolonged violent engagements in late nineteenth-century Kentucky and West Virginia were referred to commonly as feuds, a tendency that was partly due to the nineteenth-century popularity of William Shakespeare and Sir Walter Scott, both of whom had written semihistorical accounts of blood feuds. These incidents, the most famous of which was the Hatfield–McCoy feud, were regularly featured in the newspapers of the eastern U.S. between the Reconstruction Era and the early twentieth century, and are seen by some as linked to a Southern culture of honor with its roots in the Scots-Irish forebears of the residents of the area. Another prominent example is the Regulator–Moderator War, which took place between rival factions in the Republic of Texas. It is sometimes considered the largest blood feud in American history."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feud
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7047
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhist morality

Post by Kim O'Hara »

Aemilius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:59 am
Cinnabar wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:04 pm 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.
That has not been always so, it is a fairly recent and new development in humanity. Before the normal rule was Feud or Vendetta:
No it wasn't. The normal rule has always been cooperation and mutual support within the community, however widely or narrowly 'the community' is defined at that time and place. Aggression within the community has always been channelled, controlled, limited - and repeat offenders punished according to local tradition.

:namaste:
Kim
Post Reply

Return to “Ethical Conduct”