Ethics

Buddhism said:
How will you make Buddhism aware of your challenge? How will you know it is aware? How can it respond? How will you be aware if it does?
Click to expand...
Good questions! Actually my challenge is a test to see whether Buddhism has a sense of humor. Apparently it does, because my challenge hasn't been taken seriously. :)
 
Snoopy said:
Really? Why?

The longest lasting might be the most evangelical with a backup of the greatest level of violence.

Is that the best then?
Click to expand...
Let me think about that. Surely violence makes for superficial evangelism. Surely evangelism isn't violence. If violence is good evangelism then perhaps Buddhism should consider using it.
 
Snoopy,

Quite agree. "Best" should mean "that which yields the greatest good" or "that which does the least harm" or "that which is the closest approximation we have to the truth" or "that which frames a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted” or (make up your own definition
 
Dream said:
Good questions! Actually my challenge is a test to see whether Buddhism has a sense of humor. Apparently it does, because my challenge hasn't been taken seriously. :)
Click to expand...

You raised your eyebrows, I winked.
 
Dream said:
Let me think about that. Surely violence makes for superficial evangelism. Surely evangelism isn't violence. If violence is good evangelism then perhaps Buddhism should consider using it.
Click to expand...


Of course evangelism is not the same as violence. They seem to make a good team though.
 
radarmark said:
Quite agree. "Best" should mean "that which yields the greatest good" or "that which does the least harm" or "that which is the closest approximation we have to the truth" or "that which frames a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted” or (make up your own definition
Click to expand...


and hello to you, quaker-in-the-making. :)
 
Dream said:
Here is a challenge to Buddhism:

Maybe enlightenment is all a show to attract the curious. Would you be attracted to ethical behavior if it seemed nonsensical or un-useful? Assuming your claim that we are all impermanent, we nevertheless appear. Our impermanence would not remove our appearance. So this is just a show to make me think that enlightenment is real when in fact its a farce placed upon me to get me to be ethical. You want me to be ethical and advance the farce of enlightenment as an enticement, because you haven't got anything real to bribe me with. This is in accordance with the Lotus Sūtra . This sutra asserts that deception is acceptable in order to teach. You are trying to deceive me into behaving ethically by pretending that ethics is built up from something called 'Enlightenment' which you cannot prove exists. That monks spend their lifetimes seeking it is further proof that it is a ruse.
Click to expand...

I have written in this whole thread about the fallacy of morals and ethics, yet all I talk about on this site is enlightenment. I can say, from personal experience, that enlightenment is not a farce. I am an example how wrong your statement here is...
 
Paladin said:
You should go and tell them they're doing it all wrong! :D
Click to expand...

I am attempting to, but I cannot go to the leaders and say this because the leaders are putting food on their table through their lies. I am not benefiting in any way, so I can tell you truth without putting myself in a worse situation.
 
radarmark said:
Snoopy,

Quite agree. "Best" should mean "that which yields the greatest good" or "that which does the least harm" or "that which is the closest approximation we have to the truth" or "that which frames a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted” or (make up your own definition
Click to expand...

Good is a bias, just as best is - these must both be dropped, things are as they are and however you fight it you will suffer. I would say that an overemphasis on good is actually the most harmful thing people can do. It is exactly this which has caused the Oslo incident, he has thought that bombing these buildings with further his cause for betterment.

Enlightenment is a direct experience of truth, there is no necessity for approximating it. Thing is, logic is exactly the enemy of truth, truth is not logical - best way to prove this is that logic can never answer why life exists, it can never answer how life happens. Even in the explanation of the beginnings of life, we cannot explain why it happens, why this results in life. We certainly cannot explain how or why it has begun in the first place - we can only say that it has.

The West has shown the power of logic, our creations are amazing, but still we have not answered the most basic questions. A simple question "what is the point" and the logician is stumped.
 
Snoopy said:
The longest lasting might be the most evangelical with a backup of the greatest level of violence.

Is that the best then?
Click to expand...
So that I don't lose track: IowaGuy's comment is that the best religion is the one that motivates the best behavior in its followers, to which I said "No its the one that lasts the longest." Then you said its the one that does the greatest good, and you mentioned that sometimes the longest lasting is actually violent so not the best. Then radarmark agreed with you.

To which I reply that peacemaking isn't the only measure of a religion's worth. If a religion is very successful at some other things, then some violence might be overlooked. Childbirth is violent, and there are certain other violences in the world but isn't the world still peaceful overall?

Tigers eat mice, yet mice remain. If Tigers stopped eating mice would Tigers remain? Probably not. Therefore the Tiger must continue to eat mice, and that is the best religion for Tigers.
 
Dream said:
Then you said its the one that does the greatest good.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that please?

Violence does not include childbirth I don't think. Great pain but that is not violence.

I do not see analogies from a food chain as appropriate, could you expand? (not sure mice are on tiger menus ... but still... :rolleyes: )
 
Snoopy said:
Where did I say that please?

Violence does not include childbirth I don't think. Great pain but that is not violence.

I do not see analogies from a food chain as appropriate, could you expand? (not sure mice are on tiger menus ... but still... :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...
Good catch. Yes there I was losing track. You did not say that.

Ok so we'll not call childbirth violence. What about natural disasters? They seem violent, yet overall the world is peaceful. Should we judge the earth to be worse than the moon? The moon is very peaceful, but it also lacks many things.

Ok, I will leave out analogies from the food chain, even though we are part of it.
 
Dream said:
What about natural disasters? They seem violent, yet overall the world is peaceful. Should we judge the earth to be worse than the moon? The moon is very peaceful, but it also lacks many things.

Ok, I will leave out analogies from the food chain, even though we are part of it.
Click to expand...

Yes one can say a tornado is violent but that is not the same use of the word in relation to ethics. In that sense, a tornado cannot be violent because it is amoral.

Following on from that, how is a comparison of the earth and the moon germaine to ethics...?

And yes we are all a part of food chains but was hoping you'd indicate the relevance of this to ethics.
 
Lunatik said:
I have written in this whole thread about the fallacy of morals and ethics, yet all I talk about on this site is enlightenment. I can say, from personal experience, that enlightenment is not a farce. I am an example how wrong your statement here is...
Click to expand...
That is a good testimony which I've no reason to disregard, but the topic isn't only about me. You could be incorrect or any number of things could explain what you said. In Psychology there is a phenomenon called Time Distortion, in which a hypnotic suggestion causes the unconscious mind to invent facts including entire journeys with details included. A mind is a vulnerable thing, so it could be that you are mistaken or even partially so. What if in order to teach you ethics someone thought it reasonable to brainwash you? Its not impossible. People are brainwashed by well intentioned individuals as well as not so well intentioned ones.
 
Yes one can say a tornado is violent but that is not the same use of the word in relation to ethics. In that sense, a tornado cannot be violent because it is amoral.

Following on from that, how is a comparison of the earth and the moon germaine to ethics...?

And yes we are all a part of food chains but was hoping you'd indicate the relevance of this to ethics.
Click to expand...
True a natural disaster is amoral, however it demonstrates that the good and the bad come as a package. A religion may have both good and bad aspects from an individual's point of view. One religion may be violent, but it may excel more than others in another area. I can concede a religion that lasts longer may not be the best, but motivating good behavior isn't the only dimension of a religion that matters. Flexibility is another one as well as potential to improve. Another is how well it fits humanity. That is where the food chain was relevant. A Tiger, somewhere between a human and a tornado, is neither perfectly amoral nor capable of handling a human religion. If we can rate religions from worst to best, which one is humanity best suited to have? Perhaps humanity is not compatible with the best one. Though one may be best if it doesn't suit us, then its not best for us.
 
Dream said:
That is a good testimony which I've no reason to disregard, but the topic isn't only about me. You could be incorrect or any number of things could explain what you said. In Psychology there is a phenomenon called Time Distortion, in which a hypnotic suggestion causes the unconscious mind to invent facts including entire journeys with details included. A mind is a vulnerable thing, so it could be that you are mistaken or even partially so. What if in order to teach you ethics someone thought it reasonable to brainwash you? Its not impossible. People are brainwashed by well intentioned individuals as well as not so well intentioned ones.
Click to expand...

It is quite impossible because I have never been with a teacher... it is further impossible because the experience was not of mind, it occurred exactly because mind had been subdued. Certainly, it is mind which describes it today, and as such it is impossible to do it justice - mind doesn't even comprehend it fully, words cannot say what has happened because the designers of these words have not experienced it. It is quite frustrating, in many ways, because it is something so simple to know but impossible to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top