[RagonaCon]

There are many misconceptions about the Buddha's teachings, even among Buddhists. Most do not know that the Buddha taught an ethics of reciprocity that is entirely independent of any sort of superstition or beliefs. The following is an example of the Buddha teaching his own version of the "Golden Rule" to householders, teaching from his own Dhamma of liberation from suffering. The beauty of such an ethics of reciprocity is that does not depend on belief in any stories, superstitions, or speculative views, and thus there is no danger of one's ethics collapsing if one ceases to believe an any particular story, superstition, or speculative view. No matter what one believes or does not believe with respect to the origin of the world or the cosmos or the "nature of reality" or whatever, the following still holds true:





Veludvareyya Sutta, Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate

S 55.7


"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."

"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The Blessed One said this:

"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech, exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter, exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects."

[galaktiusman]

I would like to point out here the idea that all religion begins, develops, and ends with ethics.

Most all religions today base their ethical plank on superstition -- carrot and stick, heaven and hell. We hear about people who have a "crisis of faith", which arises with doubt in the stories or superstitions that one's ethics is founded in. The danger here is that, once ones "faith" in the story or the superstition is shaken, ones ethics is also challenged: Well, if there isn't really a "God", or if we can't really know that there is such a thing, then how can we know that there is right or wrong? And how can we know that we shouldn't just do as we please, regardless of whom we might hurt along the way?

The Buddha's teaching above is not dependent on stories or superstitions, and thus forms a rock-solid basis for ethical behavior. The Buddha addresses such concerns as "what if there is no god?" with examples of what one can see and know for oneself. And this is what the Buddha claims about his own liberative teachings; they can be seen for oneself here and now, that they are universal and applicable to anyone in any age, place, or culture. It doesn't matter if there is a God or gods watching over us; we have a social responsibility to ourselves and to others to act ethically, because our actions affect others, and affect ourselves as well.