What is Right Action?

[@mikebowman9844]

Thank you Doug.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@patrickacolifloresvillasen1731]

Thanks, Doug!

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure!

[@enochbird3862]

I love how genuinly invested you are in what's correct. I feel like when I listen to you I can see your thought process.

[@DougsDharma]

I appreciate that Enoch, thanks!

[@triciahutchins97]

The way that I first encountered the precept of not stealing is: Do not take that which is not offered. This is very clear and very broad. It also includes a choice that I have to be generous and offer items over which I have control.

[@DougsDharma]

Good advice Tricia, thanks!

[@DonGaviota]

I find especially interesting mentioning that the rightness of an action is conditioned by it's intention. For example, if you are passing by another person harming or clearly about to harm others, and you physically stop him, I would consider it a right action as long as the minimal force is used to subdue the attacker, whether you injure him or not. On the other hand, giving shoes and food to another person in need, only for others to see you or recognise you doing a good deed, even though the outcome for the poor is good, is an action tainted by an egoistical desire, and thus is a bad action.

[@DougsDharma]

Interesting yes, though for the Buddha all generous actions are good even if they are done with regard to self-benefit (Most donations to the sangha are made to gain good karma, which is an egoistic aim).

[@DonGaviota]

@@DougsDharma I see how a good action would have always a net positive outcome, even when done with bad intentions, and I agree that it is better to do something good than to do nothing at all. But wouldn't it be considered wrong intention, and in some cases, even wrong speech? Let's put the case of a worker in a company who endorses a colleague and gets him a promotion, but with the intention of damaging a third's career, seeking to cause pain. Wouldn't that be at least wrong intention? Or even lying?

[@sagar11222]

In brief, Right action is mainly avoidance of three actions, which means abstain from killing, stealing and harmful sex to people.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, that's one way to look at it sagar, thanks.

[@xiaomaozen]

Thank you for the video, Doug! 🙏 What about killing or taking life out of kindness or compassion? Imagine "my" cat bringing home a mouse which is still alive, but fatally/mortally wounded and obviously suffering pain? Or what about "my" cat suffering from an incurable/terminal and painful disease? For my part, I don't hesitate to release sentient beings from their pain/suffering in the case of an incurable/terminal painful disease. Life is not an absolute value for me. 🐾

[@DougsDharma]

That's a great question xiao mao. I did an earlier video on suicide and euthanasia in Buddhism that might be helpful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2eVi5qMjKaBsJY

[@xiaomaozen]

@@DougsDharma Oh, thanks! 🙂 Gonna watch it soon...

[@mr.b1362]

Great video! Could we get one covering the last 2 precepts as well?

[@DougsDharma]

Well I have another video on the Five Precepts that should fit the bill ... kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJ-zm4eeo5mLqNU

[@jacksonbarua7574]

Is beating someone wrong action?

[@DougsDharma]

I would say so!

[@patrickcahill4396]

I would say that 'Right Action' is rather topical at present with the revelations surrounding Sogyal Rinpoche. I would be interested in a vlog about 'teacher' / student relationship and or Guru worship; if you had a mind to produce one.

[@DougsDharma]

Hi Patrick and thanks, yes that's one of them I have on the back burner to do eventually.

[@logansimmons3199]

You mentioned that there is no reference to homosexuality in early Buddhist teachings. Is there anything more recently within Buddhism about homosexuality?

[@DougsDharma]

I am not very knowledgeable about this, though I believe others have written on it. There is a little later material, though IIRC much of it is influenced by local cultural mores, as we might expect.

[@logansimmons3199]

@@DougsDharma Okay. So I'm guessing sexual orientation doesn't matter as long as we are following the eightfold path. Does that sound right?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, exactly so.

[@logansimmons3199]

@@DougsDharma Thank you. I've just found your videos recently and they've been a great guide to Buddhism (which I am new to) and your content has really spoken to me. Be well

[@alexdavis1235]

What if you must kill? For example in self defence, bug extermination, etc?

[@DougsDharma]

Great question, and there isn't any really good answer in early Buddhism. It's up to you to decide whether these are really necessary or not. See for example my video on ethical dilemmas in early Buddhism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6jUe3qirZd2erM For myself, I do find bug extermination necessary sometimes to preserve home and health. And I do think self defense can be a reason to be violent. But I'm not sure the Buddha would have agreed.

[@alexdavis1235]

Doug's Dharma thank you very much.

[@RandolfLycan]

Isn't there something about "not abusing intoxicating substances" that's part of right action?

[@DougsDharma]

Actually the typical description of right action in the suttas doesn't mention intoxicants. Not abusing intoxicants is a part of the five precepts, which is a slightly separate topic.

[@TheUltimateBlitz1]

Hi Doug, did the Buddha ever explain his rationale/justification for his moral teachings, or can the justification only be realized through awakening or practice? I find Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics to be the most persuasive, but from what I've heard/read Buddhism seems most similar to rule utilitarianism, where pleasure/pain created is used to morally value actions, but intents are also accounted for. Regardless of which moral system is true or otherwise, it does seem Buddhist practice can help one practice their chosen moral system with less conflict and more clarity. Thanks for the videos!

[@DougsDharma]

Usually among scholars Buddhism is considered a form of virtue ethics like Aristotle or the Stoics, though really the Buddha wasn’t interested in foundationalizing his ethical system. That is, it has elements of virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and even deontology, and the Buddha never said which interpretation was the “correct” one. (To have done so would have been anachronistic anyhow).

[@TheUltimateBlitz1]

@@DougsDharma Thanks Doug! I shall attempt to virtuously practice Kantian ethics then!

[@DipayanPyne94]

Yes. Buddha certainly DID give GOOD REASONS for his Ethical Teachings. 2 Extremely Important Suttas from the Pali Canon make this Crystal Clear : 1) Ambalatthika Rahulovada Sutta In this Sutta, Buddha teaches Rahula (who was probably his Son) that the Basis for his Physical, Verbal and Mental Deeds should be the 'Avoidance of Harm'. Why should people not harm others ? Well, it's obvious, but Buddha gives a Good Reason for this too. Read the next point for that. 2) Veludvareyya Sutta Here, he gives the 'Golden Rule'. This rule is basically the 'Justification' for the 'Avoidance of Harm' that I talked about in the previous point. Buddha explains that people should not harm each other because they would not want the same to be done to themselves. The Above 2 Suttas are 2 of my Personal Favorites. They make it very clear that the Foundations of Secular Humanism go back to not only the Ancient Greeks but also Buddha. Why ? Simply coz Buddha was a Brilliant Humanist ! He gave Good Naturalistic Reasons for most of his Ethical Teachings ... Anyway, please read the above Suttas. They are Free on the Net ...

[@TheUltimateBlitz1]

@@DipayanPyne94 Hi Dipayan, thanks for the readings. I think that the Golden Rule is a pretty good rule of thumb. However, it runs into issues regarding things that some individuals find harmful and others find beneficial. For example, if someone asks "how do I look?" certain people may be offended if you honestly told them they don't look good while others may appreciate the honesty or feedback. A more cynical approach is asking whether a masochist, who loves harm, can perform moral actions, according to the Golden Rule, if they harm themselves or others. Therefore, I believe there needs to be more grounding, beyond the Golden Rule, to judge decisions as immoral, amoral, or moral.

[@DipayanPyne94]

@@TheUltimateBlitz1 Oh yes. The Golden Rule is not Perfect. Far from it. That's why, I asked you to go through the other sutta. The 'Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta' is absolutely Brilliant. It makes it very clear that Buddha's Ethical Foundation was 'Do not harm others or yourself'. However, he doesn't stop there. He simply gives a short lesson to Rahula, his son. He explains his teachings in greater detail in other texts. After all, he taught for more than 40 years. So, you might wanna check out some other videos by Doug, the person in the video above. Now, lemme answer your questions. You talked about 'How do I look ?'. Well, that's a question that humans will have different answers to. Why ? Coz it is subjective. Some people may like your face. Others may not. No one has the correct answer to such a question. Not Buddha, not Plato, not Aristotle, not Kant, not Nietzsche, not Nobody. That's not really what Moral Philosophy is all about anyway. It has more to do with Violence, Racism, Xenophobia, Hate Speech etc. Those are the big questions. People don't really care too much about 'How do I look ?'. But guess what ? Good friends tend to be honest. If you are not dressed properly according to your friend, he/she might honestly tell you 'Hey. That doesn't look good'. Or, 'You look so clumsy today' or 'You have gained a lot of weight'. And so on. However, such a person is still your friend because he/she gets the important things right, such as Love, Kindness, Generosity, Empathy etc etc etc. You know, Virtues. You can't always answer each and every question. No one can, especially because there are a lot of things that are subjective, not objective. Then, let's talk about Masochism. It's tricky. Even consenting adults can end up crossing the lines/limits. So, something like BDSM is very tricky. It can have harmful consequences. Momentary gratification can have negative psychological consequences in the long run. But if people still want to engage in something like BDSM, they are free to do so. They should be careful. You see, from a Buddhist point of view, people are just supposed to take wise decisions to 'Avoid Harm'. They should avoid harming themselves or others. The specifics don't matter simply because they can never be written down. Why so ? Coz there are infinite possibilities. It is just not sensible to write all of them down. The Basic Idea of 'Do not Harm others or yourself' should be followed. If they harm others, they should get the necessary punishment. If they harm themselves, they should be treated. But yeah, even those who harm others deserve treatment, to be very honest. That's where Buddha's teachings are perhaps the most beneficial. They don't just contain the Idea of 'Not Harming Oneself or Others'. Why ? Coz there is so much more. What's Unique about Buddha's teachings is that he taught actual Methods to get Rid of 'Mental Defilements' that drive people to do evil things in the first place. Those Methods are a Part of Psychology. If they are Adopted by Humans, the very 'Motivation' to do anything evil will be wiped off the minds of people. That's why, Buddha was such a Legend. The Ancient Greeks were the Greatest Philosophers of the Ancient World. However, Buddha made some very Unique Contributions that No Ancient Greek knew anything about. That's why, I often describe Buddha as 'The ONE Philosopher that the Ancient Greeks NEVER had ...'. He was that good ... Anyway, please read the 2 suttas I asked you to. Thanks ! 🙂

[@noagenda4035]

How do Buddhists reconcile not-killing with eating meat? I feel like you cannot hold on to both, that is a logical inconsistency, but it doesn’t seem to bother most east-Asian Buddhists. What’s your take?

[@DougsDharma]

Well I did an earlier video on the controversy you can see here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGbSn5aGeZydgdE

[@neshimanati]

Hi there Doug. Do you have a more recent video on "Right Action"? The background noise and music make it hard for me to focus on the message (caused by a hearing impairment). Thanks in advance ♥

[@DougsDharma]

I have another video on the five precepts that largely reflects the same sort of teaching: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJ-zm4eeo5mLqNU

[@amc903]

where are the rest of video should there not be 8? on the 8 fold path? I am confused my friend

[@DougsDharma]

😄 Yes there are eight videos. Here is a link to the playlist of all eight: kzbin.info/aero/PL0akoU_OszRjnpcsAhKPho5jAnjIPUvlH

[@MrSimp75]

I am very confused when it comes to 'action', right or not. I mean why act at all ? for food and shelter and/or satisfaction? which is fine, but is that what Buddha says ? please enlighten... Given money without earning livelihood, many will do it, isn't it ?

[@DougsDharma]

There are many reasons to act, we can also act to help others or to be generous, and certainly we need to eat and live and gain a livelihood.

[@MrSimp75]

@@DougsDharma I thought of helping others, but would eliminating diseases (for example), and even making people immortal and youthful forever, eliminate dukkha ?

[@MrSimp75]

@@DougsDharma Are doctors really helping others by saving life ?

[@SuperSmithdan]

I am daily observing videos on Eightfold path. but your head fills up too much of the screen Doug, the music and the "skips" on the video takes are giving me a headache. doesn't look genuine. maybe back up a bit from camera to fix both, or eliminate both. thanks Doug

[@DougsDharma]

Hi Dan, this is an old video you are commenting on, check out my newer videos -- I think they clear up many of the problems you're finding. In general making videos involves a steep learning curve!

[@mr.b1362]

Dan Magran maybe just try listening to the audio! Focus on the message to be learnt