[taesrom]

.


I found this article in a back issue whilst browsing the 'Journal of Buddhist Ethics' and wondered if anyone had any comments.



A Buddhist Ethic Without Karmic Rebirth?


by Winston L. King


"Is a viable and authentic Buddhist ethic possible without the prospect of rebirth governed by one's karmic past?

This paper explores traditional and contemporary views on karma with a view to determining the importance of this doctrine for practical ethics in the West. The Theravāda emphasis on the personal nature of karma is discussed first, followed by a consideration of the evolution of a social dimension to the doctrine in the Mahāyāna. The latter development is attributed to the twin influences of the Bodhisattva ideal and the metaphysics of Nāgārjuna and Hua Yen.

Following this survey of traditional perspectives, attention is turned for the greater part of the paper to a consideration of the relevance of the notion of karmic rebirth for Buddhist ethics in the West."


Continued:

http://www.buddhistethics.org/1/king1.html

[amusaasyday]

Basically, the question is whether there can be Ethics without recourse to some sort of Ontology. Another way of putting this question is "Can there be Ethics without God" as a specific case. Ethics without Rebirth? Impossible, says the traditional interpretation, and it offers kamma as a sort of electromagnetic force that operates according to moral principles on all beings throughout samsara, including gods and demons and mice.

It's ridiculous; one of the clearest explanations of why was given by Sam Harris at a TED talk, but that is merely an example of the fact that the argument "Ethics must have its foundation in some sort of metaphysical structure" is demonstrably weak, albeit highly popular.

With that, the rest of the article becomes moot; it is the premise of rebirth that stops my being able to follow the reasoning according to the Dhamma, and so it is that the rebirth assumption causes there to be an unnecessary problem.

[V8V8V8]

A Buddhis Ethic [should be practiced] Without Karmic Rebirth...

at least for Soto Zen understanding.

Zen insist in "doing just because..." just because a true Buddhist practice should be done in this way. Setting Karmic Rebirth ends in a selfish practice as is more less explained by Winston L. King article:

In fact Jones finds some of the motivations in the developed Theravāda tradition that speak of the "good" next life to be gained by "good" actions, to be totally anti-Buddhists because they pander to greed and pride[...]

And not just greed and pride but again and again hate of what we dislike, attachment for what we like and the ignorance of both deluded states of mind...

In a next paragraph there is depicted the notion that Karma as it is, neutral, as explained here:

The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects and a bad action bad effects, it is not justice or reward...but this in virtue of its own nature, its own law.[14]

Such neutrality is important because the good and the bad becomes in wholesome and unwholesome depending not in a social moralism but in the inner mental state and the development of awareness and mindfullness.

About Social Engaged Buddhism:

Not all Western Buddhists would agree with Jones in his delineation of a socially active Buddhism as its proper role. Many look upon Buddhism as a refuge from the wear and tear of daily life and from the frenetic pace of life in the West, not as a bugle call to action.

At least the Zen understanding of this aspect comes when we are told "to be in the world but not of the world"; that is, the practice of Dharma even in the middle of the crowded and busiest world. Which has a deep meaning... not pretending to be a saviour of world or society but just to practice with a deep commitment what Buddha taught... the rest will come by itself smoothly.

[TimoDassss]

If I pinch you, I know it hurts, it would hurt me the same.

[Kuncher]

It's ridiculous; one of the clearest explanations of why was given by Sam Harris at a TED talk, but that is merely an example of the fact that the argument "Ethics must have its foundation in some sort of metaphysical structure" is demonstrably weak, albeit highly popular.

It seems clear to me that one need look no further than natural selection for the cause of moral behaviour: behaving in such a manner as to promote the welfare of the group is conducive to the group's survival. Given the physical inadequacies of our ape-like ancestors, they would have died out without socio-contributory behaviours. No messiahs required.

[fygESytT]

In fact Jones finds some of the motivations in the developed Theravāda tradition that speak of the "good" next life to be gained by "good" actions, to be totally anti-Buddhists because they pander to greed and pride[...]

And not just greed and pride but again and again hate of what we dislike, attachment for what we like and the ignorance of both deluded states of mind...

The Buddha himself points this out in the Maha Cattarisaka SUtta, MN 117. He calls the belief-centered ethical systems such as karma/reincarnation "right view with defilements" (sammaditthi sasava), and distinguishes his own Noble Right View from these belief-cantered ethics.

This word "sasava" is significant here -- its root is "asava", which is translated as defilememts, pollutants, taints, fermentations, effluents. These are the same "taints" or "effluents", etc., that the Buddha talks about elsewhere, and he declares the goal of the path is the ending of the asavas.

The Buddha defines the asavas as sensuality, becoming, ignorance, and speculative view, all of which we can see are intrinsic to ontology/belief-based ethical doctrines such as karma/reincarnation.

[GogaMegaPiska]

But then the question might arise, "If not an ontological ethics, then what?"

The Buddha's own ethics was one of reciprocity -- the "Golden Rule", which he espoused quite thoroughly in the Veludvareyya Sutta, the Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate, SN 55.7, which is available for examination in the pinned "Buddha's Unshakable Ethics" thread in the Beginner's Forum of this group.


A portion here:

"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.

...

[sobre]

Solely for the sake of completeness, I point out that some do indeed truly wish to die, so the Buddha's assertions here cover a (true) general wish to live, not the exception. The same may be true of other applications of the Golden Rule. As we will most likely be aware, it is a matter of debate whether the wish to die should be honoured, rather than treated as an aberration to be "cured". Among supporters of assisted suicide, for example, it is honoured.

[popsicesHoupe]

Seems to me like a person who commits suicide does so more out of a wish to be free of physical pain or mental suffering, rather than out of an actual wish to die, no...?

[Pharmaciest2007]

Seems to me like a person who commits suicide does so more out of a wish to be free of physical pain or mental suffering, rather than out of an actual wish to die, no...?

I agree in that particular case. Further cases include those who wish to die: 1. to end emotional or existential pain; 2. because they cannot stand the world as it is; 3. because the world no longer holds any joy for them (if it ever did). Among those who discuss the legitimacy of a wish to die, this may be most likely to be upheld in the third case, where there is apparently no extreme circumstance driving the person toward death, but also nothing holding them to life. This is perhaps more likely to be the lot of older people, who, assuming they once enjoyed life, have lost what they enjoyed: a love, perhaps or their youth. In such a case, one may try to teach them that life may still hold something for them, or we can respect their position. Perhaps this will always be a matter of debate and something that will always be taken out of our hands by some.

As far as the Dhamma is concerned, my own view is that the fully trained mind will make suicide unnecessary, since mental suffering will cease and physical suffering is irrelevant, ignored.

[wbeachcomber]

The Buddha himself points this out in the Maha Cattarisaka SUtta, MN 117. He calls the belief-centered ethical systems such as karma/reincarnation "right view with defilements" (sammaditthi sasava), and distinguishes his own Noble Right View from these belief-cantered ethics.

Thanks dear Stuka,

This is why practice requires to be done "just because" and not for the sake of a "better reincarnation" because this is not the Buddha teaching of the Eightfold Noble Path if it is done in accordance with the Four Noble Truths.

This word "sasava" is significant here -- its root is "asava", which is translated as defilememts, pollutants, taints, fermentations, effluents. These are the same "taints" or "effluents", etc., that the Buddha talks about elsewhere, and he declares the goal of the path is the ending of the asavas.

The Buddha defines the asavas as sensuality, becoming, ignorance, and speculative view, all of which we can see are intrinsic to ontology/belief-based ethical doctrines such as karma/reincarnation.

Thanks Stuka

[nickayary]

Having reflected thus,

An example of what discernment means and when, by itself, bursts out the "golden rule" or ethics without the need of any metaphysical intermediate.

[Amfdaaandhaq]

my own view is that the fully trained mind will make suicide unnecessary

True dear snowmelt,

since mental suffering will cease and physical suffering is irrelevant, ignored.

And also that physical suffering can be void from any mental defilement we use to give to it... leaving it just as physical suffering. Sometimes what really aggravates physical suffering is all the mental stuff we attach to it...

Now I want to rise an issue here...

Is it considered suicide not to take chemical or radiation for a sever illness like an advanced cancer, and just accept the illness as it is and live with that until death comes?

[AdipexAdipex]

Now I want to rise an issue here...
Is it considered suicide not to take chemical or radiation for a sever illness like an advanced cancer, and just accept the illness as it is and live with that until death comes?

I would not consider it suicide.

Chemo and radiation therapy are horrors in their own right.

[Alex Photographer]

Chemo and radiation therapy are horrors in their own right.

Shure Stuka dear, I witnessed that horror with a member of my family... the experience was terrible.

Thanks,

[TimEricsson]

Here's another paper from Stephen Batchelor's website that examines critiques of Batchelor's writings:

http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/msthesiscover.htm

ABSTRACT

The current study examines the agnostic Buddhism of contemporary scholar and practitioner Stephen Batchelor. The main question under examination is whether the essence of Buddhism is undermined when interpreted through Batchelor’s agnostic and “belief-free” lens. In an attempt to answer this question, Batchelor’s main philosophical texts – Alone With Others, The Faith to Doubt, and Buddhism Without Beliefs – are analysed, as are three critiques of his work written by Bhikkhu Punnadhammo, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Sangharakshita. It is concluded that while Batchelor is discarding many of the conventional trappings of Buddhism, he is not placing its integrity at risk.


Perhaps at some point I will find time to write my own examinations of the three critiques as well. I have read all of them (they are also on Batchelor's website), and none of them are convincing.

[nithhysfusy]

Here's another paper from Stephen Batchelor's website that examines critiques of Batchelor's writings:

Thanks,

[kvitacencia]

It's ridiculous; one of the clearest explanations of why was given by Sam Harris at a TED talk, but that is merely an example of the fact that the argument "Ethics must have its foundation in some sort of metaphysical structure" is demonstrably weak, albeit highly popular.

Maybe l'm being a little dense here ,but why is the argument"Ethics must have...." "demonstrably weak?"
Imo if we have a clear understanding of Anatta then we have a clear understanding that there is no self to become a "bodhisattva" no self to become enlightened,in fact no issue.
If karmma does not have consequences why are we even discussing the matter. Why did Buddha make karmma such a issue.
In fact if karmma is of no consequence then the same could be said of Dependant Origination.

[Edqpdnuu]

And also that physical suffering can be void from any mental defilement we use to give to it... leaving it just as physical suffering. Sometimes what really aggravates physical suffering is all the mental stuff we attach to it...

Yes, I agree.

Is it considered suicide not to take chemical or radiation for a sever illness like an advanced cancer, and just accept the illness as it is and live with that until death comes?

You will get different opinions on this, I think, and that may be the best we can expect in terms of a definition: it is suicide if we agree it is.

[clorkergo]

You will get different opinions on this,

True Snowmelt

it is suicide if we agree it is.

Or it is not if we agree it is not...

IMO i think it is not... and I feel that the idea of having chemotherapy and other procedures when the illness is hard to tackle are a kind of attachment... In my personal case I will never go through that...

Thanks Snowmelt,