Western Ethics Vs Buddhist Ethics

[@raens9256]

I, personally, appreciate the bird's eye into your thought processes while you're working out the book. Thank you for sharing, and for making the book-effort.

[@canseeme1982]

Please stop apologizing for not doing more videos. You're doing great! Love your stuff.

[@HardcoreZen]

OK. I'm sorry for apologizing!

[@20NotTwothousand]

Good luck Brad! Looking forward to the read.

[@jme7474]

I think the Western sense of hierarchies of value - what's more valuable/meaningful/important than something else - figures into your dilemma quite a bit. Western ethics seems to place much more value on things and intentions, where Buddhist ethics seems to place more value on actions and results. I don't know, this is off the cuff and needs more thinking through.

[@jamesderieg4158]

Good luck with your book Brad and thank you for still making videos, they are really interesting and helpful.

[@gustomizuka4266]

Thanks for this one, very compelling subject and relevant to current events.

[@purpledoo]

Good luck in trying to make sense of it! Personally, every time I try to rationalise ethics and, more in general, the philosophy behind Buddhism, I soon get stuck. I think the problem lay in the method itself: too much speculation and the impossibility of getting empirical facts; obviously this lead to a sandcastle. That's probably why I've fallen in love with Zen. Essentially, sit down and shut up. Meditation then becomes both an instrument, to learn how to shut up, and the objective itself, that is just sitting there. In other words, practice is enlightenment. However, since I'm still intrigued by questions about the behaviour and the reasons behind the choice, I'm studying it by delving in Neuroscience and behavioural Biology.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Why fall for Zen, if all is inconclusive? Don`t understand, sorry.

[@purpledoo]

Günter Appoldt, because in Zen Buddhism, in contrast to other branches of Buddhism, the focus is on ZaZen. Quoting Bodhidarma: “A special transmission outside the scriptures, Not depending on words and letters; Directly pointing to the mind Seeing into one’s true nature and attaining Buddhahood.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@purpledoo there is an even simpler formula: "Namu myô hô, renge kyô!" (as the core practice of venerating the "holy spirit" of the Lotus-sutra, as was favoured by the quite virtuous Master Nichiren). But, some say, in such alleged "easy ways" also lie some dangers, like falling into certain "Zen-diseases", but I am not an expert on these. Maybe Master Brad could somewhen give some more useful informations on such traps on the way.

[@markcaselius5993]

I am looking forward to the new book. Just finished "Letters to a dead friend" and really enjoyed it. I was especially taken with the chapter dealing with Koans. I think I actually understand the what and why of them after reading that. Of course the next one I come across will probably make me crazy but so far so good. :-)

[@HardcoreZen]

Thanks! I think sometimes certain people like to make the precepts seem much more difficult and mysterious than they really are. Then again, life itself is very mysterious!

[@doriworldafterdark]

Great video! Somehow "buddhist ethics" reminds me of the “insect politics” speech in The Fly. I read it was something David Cronenberg came up with from his days as an entomologist. He was fascinated by insect societies, the division of labor, and the caste structure therein, yet they are very much not human. Can't wait for your book. *and great thumbnail photo xo

[@HardcoreZen]

Thanks! I always try to find the worst photo of the choices that KZbin generates for thumbnails. Maybe Buddhist ethics are a bit like insect politics, in the sense that it's a very different way of looking at things from what most of us are used to.

[@ASILASIL1]

Hi Brad, i like the look of all your books but i’d like to download the one that is most practical to implement Zen practice and philosophy for life in the modern world. I’ll probably read them all eventually but I wondered if you could give me your thoughts? Thanks

[@HardcoreZen]

If you go to my blog (hardcorezen.info) and then go to the FAQ page, there is an FAQ there that says something like "Can Brad recommend some books for me to read?" At the end of that page are my own reviews/descriptions of my own books. Also, I have a video on this channel called Books I Wrote That Don't Suck, which is pretty much the same thing. Personally, I intend for ALL of my books to present practical ways to implement Zen practice and philosophy for life in the modern world. But each one does that in a different way.

[@ASILASIL1]

Thanks a lot Brad

[@franciscocastrovidela9007]

I would add some Spinoza to that West. Decentralized, beautifully anarchic, nonanthropocentric, a 'fuck you' to Cartesian dualism - and influential (with Dogen and Jeffers) on deep ecology in recent times ( Prop. XIV. Besides God (Natura) no substance can be granted or conceived.) I don't know if Deleuze's lectures on Spinoza's 'Ethics' are available in English but if they are... very much worth reading.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

R. Descartes did some good descriptive psychology, maybe even better than some Buddhists.

[@BagelBagelBagel]

@@gunterappoldt3037 are you able to offer a passage or conclusion from his writing that you are referring to? I'm interested

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@BagelBagelBagel many, really many, moons ago, I read some of his "meditationes" (or so). Bertrand Russel also did some nice introduction (--> monograph, German title: "Denker des Abendlandes", thinkers of the occident). I have great respect for Descartes, I think he tried his best.

[@osip7315]

the problem with ethical systems and why they are so much crazy nonsense is that they are rules and rules over-simplify and assume complete discovery before the situation, whereas the situation is a constant wrapping and unwrapping into different perceptions and realities i have done things i feel guilty about or my behaviour has been "narrow" but in no way do i hold myself to account in terms of a so-called ethical system, mostly its "regrets" or violations of "feelings" ethics imo belongs to the cultural and social sphere of punishment and reward, we are never "good" or "bad" people per se or in our personal view, but simply enmeshed in a system of discovery and consequences

[@EvanBerry.]

Hi, Brad -- I don't envy you the difficulty of the undertaking your book represents, but it's fascinating and timely, and rest assured I'm eager to read it (even if it's one of "these crazy books that nobody reads.") Your email conversation with the philosophy Ph.D student must be really interesting. By the way, this afternoon I finished Hardcore Zen Strikes Again, and I was trying to decide if my next book would be one of Gudo Nishijima's (To Meet the Real Dragon) or one by Kobu Chino, and this video kind of clenched it for me, since the one you quoted was the very book I was considering. Do you or any of your viewers have a preference or suggestion? I admire a passage in which Kobo Chino says that one can never truly be alone. Maybe I will purchase both books, though money is a little tight right now. Thanks again for your efforts to make videos while hard at work on your book.

[@HardcoreZen]

Both books are excellent. I tend to refer to Kobun's book more often than Nishijima Roshi's. But that may be mostly because I used To Meet the Real Dragon so often in the past.

[@EvanBerry.]

@@HardcoreZen Thank you, Brad -- I really appreciate that. It means a lot coming from the Real Kaiju.

[@notpub]

Very interesting post and well worth the wait...thank you, Brad! 3 comments: 1) Any meaningful discussion of western v eastern ethics and how we decide "what is important" would be woefully incomplete without a comparison/contrast of Geert Hofstede's Five Cultural Dimensions examining the differences between collectivist v individualist influences....since Buddhism is an originally "eastern" phenomenon it is easy to see the myriad of collectivist ideals influence its ethical system as a reinforcement for cultural stability of collectivist values. Similarly, the individualistic spectrum of western culture necessitated a largely Christian majority (along with other monotheistic blends-judaism) that provide salvation for the "I" (versus the "we") in its doctrines.

[@HardcoreZen]

Oh! I'll have to look that up. Living as an American in Japan for so many years, I often had difficulties based on their eastern collectivist ideas and my western individualistic ideas. Of course, the Japanese too also wrestle with this since they are very "westernized."

[@justinpollard9706]

Have you read much by Christian Mystics? You might find it interesting and it would make an interesting video for sure.^^ If you're interested in exploring this, I recommend the medieval Catholic mystic, Meister Eckhart.^^ Some of his ideas are so so similar to Buddhism and Zen. ^^

[@Tristan-watermelon]

That would be very interesting indeed!

[@HardcoreZen]

I really should. I've been aware of the Christian mystics for a long time, but I haven't read much from them.

[@practicalphilosophy9031]

Esoteric mystical Christianity provides much spiritual treasure.

[@joeoleary9010]

Ajahn Chah commented somewhere that trying to follow Buddhist ethics (in the Theravada tradition) is pretty much impossible. There's not just the vinaya of 227 rules, there are also 3 volumes of more rules. It all amounts to thousands of rules, and some of them contradict each other. The solution was realizing that *intent* is what truly determines karma. This is also what Ajahn Amaro told me, as I recall. And of course, that's not a satisfactory answer either. As I think Katagiri Roshi said, "no matter what you say you can only be half right."

[@HardcoreZen]

Intent is tricky. Traditionally, intent is seen as being related to karma. But there's intent and then there's intent. By that I mean, there is the intention you tell yourself that you have, and then there's the intention you actually have. Often these are entirely different.

[@jme7474]

@@HardcoreZen And then there's the intention you have, and the actual results you produce. The road to hell is paved with...

[@Tristan-watermelon]

True, but for the Buddha only the intent mattered. If you try to act in the best way possible, but end up with bad results for reasons which where beyond your power or knowledge, you still acted ethically right. Kind of similar to Kant. (I got this from "Doug's Dharma", an excellent channel on early Buddhism.)

[@jme7474]

@@Tristan-watermelon There's no way around it. But as a buddhist I think you have an ethical responsibility to strongly question whether you believe that you are awake and clear-eyed enough, to act in a way that doesn't produce unintended suffering. There's an awful lot of ego involved in trying to improve the world. Terrorists, inquisitors, Hitler, Stalin, Mao...no doubt they all thought they were going to improve the world. Intent without wisdom can be very dangerous.

[@BarbarraBay]

vinaya is for monks and not for laypeople

[@stewartdorward1606]

That's exactly the rabbit hole I've stared down - if everything is connected and of value, how you do function in life?

[@HardcoreZen]

You sort of have to figure out how to flow with it. You're not apart from the circumstances you find yourself in. That may be where it gets confusing. If you think you're apart from circumstances and that you have total control, then you start to believe you must act in the way that you, yourself, have imagined is "perfect." On the other hand, if you flow together with circumstances, you start to see that your role might be different from what you imagine it to be. Spiders don't hate flies, but its their job to eat them.

[@wadecleveland9001]

The difference is that western ethics believes in discrete objects while buddhist ethics believes that objects lack inherent existence. This means that Buddhist ethics is none other than the Buddha's omniscience in knowing precisely what to adopt and what to abandon.

[@HardcoreZen]

That's one way to put it. But the Buddha is not specially omniscient. We all are.

[@wadecleveland9001]

@@HardcoreZen There are two types of obstacles or obstructions: obstacles to liberation and obstacles to omniscience. Obstructions to liberation are mental afflictions. Obstructions to omniscience is the subtle mistaken appearance of all phenomena. So, yes, you are correct Brad.

[@blackbird5634]

Some of Jung's work suggests ''removing the self from decision making'' that's drifting pretty far east if you asked me.

[@jennzen3228]

Good luck!

[@bobbi2044]

the point about the chapter on how to go to the washroom, is to be focused on "the 10'000 buddhas." that's the ethical delemia. your book might be kind've crazy and non-sensical.

[@c.a.t.732]

The notion that pain in one's knee has always been there is completely mystifying to me, as well as seeming to contradict the Buddha's teachings about dependent arising (this factor being present, that factor arises, this factor not being present, that factor does not arise). This isn't an abstract concept to me, as I've recently developed a pain in my left knee that is causing me problems. I'm sure it has a cause (arthritis, a pinched nerve, inflammation or whatever), but I know it didn't always exist. It has arisen from a cause no doubt, and if at some point that cause is alleviated, it could go away. This seems like common sense, although it might not be philosophically interesting.

[@osip7315]

vitamin D and K2 is a great help with joints, you need the K2 to remodel the cartilage and bone, vitamin D by itself is insufficient a lot of buddhism is "corrupted" greek philosophy, the notion of pain always being there is "platonic" and in this case misapplied to the personal

[@c.a.t.732]

@@osip7315 Thanks for the advice and the perspective on my comment!

[@karmajangchubdorje]

you may have to differentiate between Zen or Japanese Buddhist ethics and Buddhist ethics in general. To most Tibetan scholars, the statement about making the floor feel pain wouldn’t make sense because plants and inanimate objects don’t have mind (unless possessed by some kind of spirit that wrongfully takes it as its body, I believe that’s a kind of hell realm). Also there is a kind of hierarchy of value in that killing your parents, drawing the blood of an arhat, etc., are much worse karmically than other actions. Also certain inanimate objects have intrinsic value, like stupas, buddha statues and scriptures-destroying a stupa is particularly bad. Very different from these stories of Zen masters destroying statues, etc. Anyway I’m just saying it may be important to make it clear you’re focusing on your own Buddhist tradition instead of Buddhism in general. Also, another thought-many years ago I took a course with a student of Kobun Chino Roshi, and I remember him saying that with each breath, we’re killing things, so the only true way to not kill anything is to not have any killing thought (I assume since action/karma begins with thought). That always stuck with me, and I think it shows the profundity of the Zen way of looking at ethics in a way that’s tied into one’s own practice and insight.

[@sugarfree1894]

"Copasetic"! Not sure if that's how it's spelled. Only heard that in reggae tunes before. Thank you for this Brad. I am sorry for my previous testy comments a few weeks ago, I hope you will forgive me. I guess the ethics thing is partly about how pain is defined. The matter of the stick and the floor feeling pain is interesting; perhaps pain in that idea could be defined as the result of the application of force for which the receiving element is not specifically or naturally designed. Dogen seems to be saying that pain is there whether it is experienced or not. This reminds me of the idea that knowledge is there whether or not it is discovered/elucidated. I had an interesting chat with my mathematician husband about that, and he believes that knowledge exists independent of whether or not it is uncovered. I think I agree with him in that, for example, the structure of DNA was what it was before it was described and confirmed - I guess! Mind you, that kind of cancels out the whole quantum reality thing doesn't it? In any case, once the matter of the nature/causes of pain is settled, we then have the matter of how value is attributed to this or that entity - does this entity deserve more or less to experience pain, at the hands of some other entity and how/by whom is that decided? I sometimes think that all of life's content is predicated on power negotiations. Anyway, all best wishes for the book - it's good to stay busy and well :)

[@HardcoreZen]

Thanks! Don't worry about any previous comments. I've long since forgotten them anyway.

[@knutfranke6846]

According to Nagarjuna, there are two kinds of truth: Relative or conventional, and absolute (i.e. emptiness). Neither one is superior to the other, and neither one is reducible to the other. The part of Buddhist ethics that deals with relative truth (such as "don't be a jerk") is generally easy to understand from the point of view of Western ethics; whereas teachings that refer to absolute truth (such as "when the stick hits the floor, both the stick and the floor experience pain") is much more difficult to explain to a Western audience.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Not realy, what you hint at is called "animism" and quite widespread around the globe. What regards Nagarjuna, I think, his deconstructionism (or even nihilism) is highly problematic.

[@knutfranke6846]

That's exactly the difficulty with ultimate truth teachings (and, by extensions, Buddhist ethics): They're trying to communicate a direct experience; but (for better or for worse) they are often phrased as ontological statements - and of course we tend to sort these statements into categories like animism or nihilism, which bring a host of associatons into the picture that have nothing to do with the intended message. For instance, Nagarjuna hismself arguably rejected a nihilistic interpretation of his teachings on emptiness (see jaygarfield.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/garfield_nihilism1.pdf section 4). I don't think it's possible to really get this point across in a book though (sorry Brad), or in a youtube comment for that matter. It seems to require, if not actual face to face transmission, then at least some form of one-on-one dialogue (as in www.liberationunleashed.com/books/gateless-gatecrashers/).

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@knutfranke6846 language has the potential and function of "pointing to someone/-thing" (--> Helen Keller`s "awakening" to the wider meaning of the touch-impulses of deaf-and-dumb language). If someone "realistically" (wirklich, wahr, real; authentisch, originär) understands the meaning of "animism" or "nihilism", then he/she connects the signs, symbols or characters with "lively" experiences (i.e., connotations, associations, fields of meaning, "black spots", etc. of the bright-dark consciousness, powered by something like H. Bergson`s "energie vitale" or Eastern "Ki"). That is to say, souls and spirits, voidness, no-ness and/or nothingness can---beyonnd lingual significations and potentially, that is, "if the time is ripe" (yes, Dôgen critizied such "evolutionary", "slow" time-concepts)---be felt as part of our multidimensional-polyvalent continuum of vital space-time. What regards Nagarjuna: His "statements that are no statements, but also not no statments ..." left ample space for (or even provoked, albeit unintended) interpretations; or, like a Zen-saying about the basic conditions of epistemology (Immanuel Kant: "What can I know?") goes: To speak don`t (seem to) work, but not to speak don`t (seem to) work either.

[@TheNeighborhoodZenPriest]

The ethics of kicking a stone reminds me of the Koan of Zhichang killing the snake. To cut it in half with the hoe can be a natural reaction without mental friction, and thus be considered ethical. To strike the ground with the hoe on the other hand can be a crude reaction with mental friction, and thus be considered immoral. Similarly; To kick a dog in certain situations can be a natural reaction without mental friction, and thus be considered ethical. To kick a stone on the other hand can be a crude reaction with mental friction, and thus be considered. This is however not an endorsement of ethical relativism since ethics are determined by the mindset and not the action itself.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Some further suggestions: Maybe the concept of K a r m a is not a tool that is analytic enough to enable us to recognize, understand, explain and judge all events on earth properly---and only one of many, out of the tool-box of the "universal science" of Homo sapiens. Regarding your example: There are different "integral levels of nature" (Julius Thomas Fraser) governed by specific "kinds of c a u s a l i t y", like: anorganic, organic, biotic, nootic, and social "worlds" (of being, sensing, experiencing ...). What you seem to propose is (quite a little reminding of the "categorical imperative" in Immanuel Kant`s transcendental philosophy): There should be absolute standards of moral-ethic behaviour (i.e., namely intentional actions), and their source can only lie inside this one (pseudo-)entity, which Zen-people often call the "body-mind" or, nearer to the "core" (which is at the same time denied any existence from the side/sight of a transcendental "witness"), the "Buddha-nature". This standard, however, would be perfectly separated form "empirics", since the only adequate measure would be the "right attitude" of a "homunculus" created by "enlightened" ones---which again promotes, de facto, a Buddhist exclusivism. The whole subject seems to be very tricky, indeed, and therefore, generally, worth further discussions.

[@macdougdoug]

Does this mean we need to understand what pain is?

[@jonathanjeffer]

My immediate reaction, was to ask, “which western ethics?“ Roman? Stoic? Christian? Christian classic versus Christian evangelical? Capitalist? Socialist? Age of enlightenment? There are some interesting thoughts in there but all in all it’s a little bit loosey-goosey, and kind of set up a strawman

[@tonydyer2919]

A message to Brad Warner Wanting to tell that man That what he is doing is To reinvent the ideas and ideals He holds to be true And to bring them to a new audience Who long for the same experiences To be the creator and the created Simultaneously To experience and to be experienced You are the Dogen of your Age © 2020 William N Dyer; all rights reserved.

[@HardcoreZen]

Awwwww...

[@TaraBaileyTgirl]

I think in most buddhist terms killing can only be done too beings. And beings are only things in the 6 realms. Obviously Dogen is being controversial to get a point across about how things only exist in mind and how all things have dukka as a basis

[@proulxmontpellier]

"Western values" are something relatively recent in some regards. Until the 17th C., there was no absolute property. Medieval law had it that whatever you owned, you did because you belonged to a comunity, which is what allowed you to keep it without the danger of someone mightier than you could come and rip it from you. You had a debt towards you comunity, and that also meant that you were not allowed to destroy something of which you no longer had any use. You had to give it away. Absolute property (with the right of use and abuse) is a produce of the will of the merchant class to be rid of such rules which hampered them.

[@HardcoreZen]

Thant's very interesting. Thank you.

[@Tristan-watermelon]

So what does it mean that the stick and floor hurt? That they are sentient? But not as sentient as animals or humans? Because if they were, monks couldn't chip down trees etc. So far, this seems like a nice Zen story to me, but without actual consequences for ethical behaviour. Well, I guess if this could be explained in a few sentences, you had done it already 🙃

[@HardcoreZen]

It's difficult. Sentience is not exclusive to what we call "living things." Yet there's a big difference between a rock and a dog.

[@Tristan-watermelon]

Thank you for your answer, I'm definitely looking forward to read your thoughts on this question in your next book!

[@notpub]

Comment 3) It's not that I can't wrap my warped head around the concept of pain always present until we "notice" it, it's that science provides an alternate narrative that I can buy into. According to Western ethos, pain as a sensation is the result of nociceptors transmitting electric signals to the brain in response to stimuli (including thoughts). In this way we may choose to ignore it, indulge it with grandiose drama, acknowledge it with little fanfare, or explore it with a detached curiosity. In this view, the pain signals are not always present like free flowing water; rather they are activated in response to something else, purely electrical in their physical presence, and in many cases, controllable through the amount of attention we afford them. Now, don't even get me started on endorphins and adrenalin, lol!

[@gunterappoldt3037]

According to E. Husserl, all narratives, scientific or else, need a base: the life-world---or the Dasein (with capitals) as "clearing" (Martin Heidegger).

[@revinar5838]

I told you to NOT read that email to anyone else!

[@Wollff85]

Funny thing you are talking about weirdness in Buddhist ethics, because even within Buddhism it's rather weird: You can find the complete opposite view in regard to the "strict system of ethics" you mention here in quite a lot of Buddhism. There are views which can excuse everything you do. Ajahn Chah was a rather famous Theravadin monk, and the part on Buddhist ethics which continues to completely baffle me is best encapsulated in a quote that went somewhat like this (I'm paraphrasing): "When I accidentally crush a bug while walking on a path, I am not creating negative karma. Negative karma only springs forth from negative intention. As long as I walk with perfectly pure intention, I walk unblemished. But even the thought about crushing a mosquito, without actually doing it, can produce bad karma, because I am having impure intentions which pollute the mind..." What you get here (and in much of Theravada for that matter) is an ultra strong focus on intention. This is the line of reasoning is also brought up again and again when one of the "crazy wisdom people" has a sex scandal again. So Mahayana is not exempt from this kind of argument: "This line of action doesn't count as unethical, because the great master did his acts with a perfectly pure mind, only for the benefit of all beings!" So what I am trying to say, is that I would be hesitant to call Dogen's stance you are explaining here "Buddhist ethics". It's Dogen's take on Buddhist ethics. To put it into western terms: What Dogen (most strongly) represents is an "ultra consequentialist" branch of Buddhist ethics. No matter what you do, you are never ever ever free of the consequences of your actions, because all actions have consequences. And nothing in the mess that is samsara, is ever free of ethical value either. The ethical value of your deeds will show itself in the consequences it produces. Inevitably. Always. No excuses. And then, you also have the complete opposite to that, represented in some other Buddhist thinkers, who represent "ultra intentionalism": The consequences of your actions do not matter, as long as you perform whatever you do with pure intentions, a pure mind, pure selfless devotion, or whatever you want to call it. As long as your mind is free from desire, ill will, and ignorance, you can literally do no wrong. The opposite also counts: As long as your mind is polluted by any of those impurities, you can do no right either, and all of your actions will always be to some degree blemished, or lacking. Your actions need to be performed with pure wisdom for the benefit of all sentient beings... What those actions are? Don't worry about it! Intention is all which counts in your cosmic karma checkbook! Anyway, if I had to talk about the differences between Buddhist and Western ethics, I would probably frame it in terms of a divide between consequentialism and intentionalism. Does the ethical value of an action only reveal itself over time, within the consequences it has? Or is the ethical value of an action always determined by the intention behind it? Even within Buddhism there seem to be stark differences on where the emphasis lies, and I would love to read about how Dogen addresses both of those "poles". I'm also reasonably happy to not have to talk about that topic, as it seems a bit difficult. Good luck!

[@ricklanders]

Those two examples, the Theravada (which is correct), and the Trungpa Rinpoche-kind of version, are not the same thing if you investigate it more carefully, however. The word kamma itself literally means intentional action. So Ajahn Chah is completely correct: the intention itself is what causes harm. If you cut someone open with a knife and you're a surgeon who's trying to save the person's life, is that bad karma? No. Even if they die, it's not bad karma, because you didn't intend to kill them at all. If you cut them with a knife out of ill-will or intention to harm them, of course that is completely different. The "Mahayana" idea that the "crazy wisdom" (whatever the fk that is, lol. Wisdom by definition is not crazy) people present is completely wrong. The very intent to do something unethical (like having sex with the student, for example, which violates the precept, or drink the alcohol, or take what isn't given, etc.) ITSELF "pollutes" the mind and will unavoidably have karmic consequences. There's no such thing as having a "pure mind" while you're intending to go do something unethical, because that intention itself is the very pollution that you're (or the "master" or whomever it is) is claiming isn't there. It's a contradiction in terms, and therefore becomes obvious that it's just a rationale for these so-called "enlightened masters" to do whatever the hell they want.

[@Wollff85]

@@ricklanders Sure, maybe the Mahayana idea is completely wrong. I'm not arguing for right or wrong here. I'm just saying that, like it or not, this is also part of Buddhist ethics. And it's not only "...a few bad apples misunderstanding and abusing Buddhist ethics" either. The most "old school" source I know which illustrates an approach that demonstrates obvious rule breaking, as a positive example of teaching, is a Koan which is called "Nansen cuts the cat in two", in which a monk named Nansen... Well, you can guess. He does that for educational purposes. And that's the lesson behind it (or at least part of it), as far as I understood it. And that's not the only one. There are quite a few Zen Koans out there, in which Zen monks do things, where the severity of their rule breaking behavior tends to move somewhere between a "Three Stooges sketch", up to violent assault, when Zen master Gutei cuts off a boy's finger. And when that Zen Master cuts off a finger, or when Nansen cuts a cat in two, then the doctrinal answer is just the same which you give here: Yes, when you kill a cat, you obviously take a life. And yes, when you cut off someone's finger... Well, I am quite certain that there is some place in the vinaya which should prevent such things from happening. But can you blame the surgeon when he cuts into a patient? Of course not! He does that with the intention (and hopefully the skill) to save the patient! And the Zen master does that with the intention to save all sentient beings and to lead everyone to enlightenment! Again: I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. What I am saying is that this approach is present in Buddhism. If we are talking about Buddhist ethics, and especially if we are talking about Zen, then I think we have to talk about those kinds of examples too. I think we have to do that exactly because they are not only present with bad apples in the present, but those examples of "rule breaking ethics" feature quite prominently in some famous texts. It might be right. It might be wrong. That can be argued about. It is present in prominent texts within Zen (and I think also some other Mahayana, but don't quote me on that). It is there. It is, in one way or another, part of Buddhist ethics. I don't think we can argue about that.

[@ricklanders]

​@@Wollff85 I'm not sure about the cat, I've never heard that story. My guess it that it's just that: a story used for a koan. In the case of "zen masters" (or whomever) actually cutting off students' fingers, breaking students' legs, etc. -- if in fact those things also actually happened -- or take the example of the kyosaku -- I think we'd have to say that the context is quite different than it would be ordinarily -- as it would be just walking up to someone and cutting off their finger or hitting them with a large board lol, for example. In the former case of the student/teacher situations, there's a different relationship both to each other and to the view of life, objective, etc. that both are engaged in that renders the action more along the lines of the surgeon example. The motivation and intent is to help and assist the student, not to harm, and both are in complete understanding of that. We might even say it would be unethical for the teacher /not/ to do those things if he or she thought it would help the student, was able to, and did not. So in that sense, I don't think those examples really are indicative of the approach of Buddhist ethics in general. And of course they are again quite different than getting drunk on alcohol or having sex with vulnerable, naive, etc. students, which obviously are not legitimate or responsible "teaching" devices in any sense of the word, and very easy to say categorically that they are wrong.

[@Wollff85]

@@ricklanders Thank you for that great reply, I think you are completely right: I also don't think any of those famous Zen stories ever actually happened. They are all illustrative examples used for teaching purposes, and given the context they really seem more in line with the surgeon example, than with the exploitation of the power difference in a student teacher relationship. What I am still not entirely sure about, is how to bring this in line with Dogen's approach which Brad lays out in the video, which doesn't seem deeply concerned with intention, and seems to place a much stronger emphasis on the role action... I'm once again so happy that I don't have to write this book!

[@HardcoreZen]

Thank you! This is interesting. I think you're basically correct about Dogen's attitude that everything has karmic consequences, no matter what the intention. It's also been my experience in life that this appears to be true. Which is one of the reasons I trust Dogen. The argument that your actions have no consequences if your intentions are "pure" seems iffy to me.

[@notpub]

Comment 2) Is the Buddhist Monk worrying about the germs he's killed while using his anti-bacterial tissue really so far fetched? Caricatures of this concern for all things (including stick and floor) bombard us in our media of the limited depictions and exposures the West casually glimpses of Buddhism....Consider, for example, the scene from the movie "7 Years in Tibet" where the Monks painstakingly take time to move earthworms from a construction site because not doing so may bring on "karma" that condemns their mothers to rebirth as earthworms.....

[@Tristan-watermelon]

As far as I know, this attitude is more typical for Jainism. For the Buddha, it was good or bad intent that matters, not the consequences of your actions. I don't know anything about Ethics in Tibetan Buddhism, though. At my Zen Center, we even eat meat at the last day of a sesshin.

[@HardcoreZen]

Do Tibetan monks really do that? They eat meat, so it's strange they would care so much for earthworms.

[@josephwilson-doan4163]

Buddhist ethics: Don’t cling. Attachment is the root of all the sins in the 10 commandments. God speed in your writing, Brad. I always enjoy your writing. I’m sure it will turn out fine!

[@chrisplaysdrums09]

I always go for the videos where you look like you’re pulling your hair out. Hasn’t failed me yet

[@ricklanders]

The stick feels pain? Lol, no. Pain is always there? No. I think that roshi is completely confused/wrong. Pain in fact is not real at all, just a temporary creation of the 5 kandhas. You had pain when you fell off your bike when you were 5 - where is that pain now? It doesn't exist. Where is the pain (self) in samadhi? It doesn't exist. Where is the pain (self) in nibbana? It doesn't exist. It couldn't have been very real then if it doesn't exist (meaning persist). Buddhist ethics would then seem to based on the reality of the situation - that ultimately pain doesn't exist - while at the same time acknowledging that we tend to believe it does (which therefore is a delusion). Words, thoughts, actions that lead to reducing that delusion are therefore ethical, while those that lead us away from realizing the reality are unethical. We don't refrain from harming the dog because we think it's a separate thing that can be harmed, but because we realize that ultimately we are not separate from the dog and that doing so sets us back in a movement toward realizing no-pain. We're interconnected in that way, and therefore when we harm the dog, we're harming the whole as well as ourselves (i.e, kamma, or skt., karma). Western ethics is totally oblivious of this notion that we are not separate from the dog (or other beings), and therefore has to ground its ethical stances in what more or less comes down to an anthropocentric projection based on a pleasure/pain duality (or on a commandment from some supposed transcendent being). It's true that we have to be aware and sensitive to the fact that what temporarily appears to be other beings can seem to experience pain, and then follow guidelines and behavior (sila) to avoid causing that pain, but fundamentally that's not the driving rationale for Buddhist ethics. The rationale is based on the fact that not following the ethical guidelines leads to a bad kammic result and impedes the progress toward all beings transcending all pain.

[@bobbi2044]

you lost me at the stick and floor feel pain, and then you're "i'm oh so right and wise" eyeballing....i'm not that stupid dude.

[@epinardianguardian2979]

Luck

[@leuchtendebirke]

Maybe you shouldn't say Buddhist ethics when you mean Dogen or Zen ethics.

[@BarbarraBay]

Is this video for real?

[@joeoleary9010]

The topic of this video is ethics. Phenomenology is the topic for next week.

[@BarbarraBay]

@@joeoleary9010 no idea, return to Christianity boy.

[@chrisplaysdrums09]

THE POOP CHAPTER!

[@lorenacharlotte8383]

I don’t like much the word “Ethics” brought into zen. Soto Zen has rules, regulations and discipline. Thich Nhat Hanh has Trainings and Engagement. Tibetan have dualistic morals for beginners in order to cultivate wholesome qualities. God religions have cathesisms. A different periods, situations...in our all life, it may happen to find ourselves so full of pain and suffering that we became sick. Is at this point of no escape that one still have a choice between getting into drugs, alcohol, commit suicide, going to a psychiatric consultant or going to the zen hospital to be cured from the illusion of being sick. No ethics involve but just a non escape situation life places in. While in zen hospital an smart patient follow and do what the Doctor (Teacher) and experienced nurses (Senior monastics) say and do. The patient gradually sees things as they are. That kind of understanding, awareness will give raise to appreciation and gratitude for all those rules, regulations and rituals, trainings of the mind. What I’m trying to say is that there are no ethics in zen but a direct action tackling pain.

[@HardcoreZen]

Well... Yes... But I think that ethics are important. They make practice possible. In a world with no ethics at all, no one could do zazen. It would be far too dangerous to just sit still by yourself. The existence of ethics makes everyone's lives better.

[@lorenacharlotte8383]

Hardcore Zen : Sickness doesn’t heal with ethics but with remedies.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@lorenacharlotte8383 ethics has roots in being, in the "attention a la vie" (H. Bergson) as "humanity" (仁), as Chinese would call it. Cultures build on it, as a kind of anthropogenic constant, for the better or worse. Daoists used to be critical, Ruists more positive, Legalists functionalist. In the West, since antiquity, we see somehow similar factions evolving.

[@lorenacharlotte8383]

Günter Appoldt : If within the contents in ethics were to alleviate, reduce pain, human suffering then that person should apply to him/her. The problem I’ve found with the word “ethics” is that it has been over used till almost its death. Spain which has been going for years through a severe spiritual crisis with the fallen down of values, principles...it all started when “ethics” took place.

[@lorenacharlotte8383]

If anyone were to read “The Five Mindfulness Trainings” by Thich Nhat Hanh, it will be noticeable to you all that The Master gives straight away a remedy as soon as one gets initiated by him into Zen Buddhism. With the initiation card comes also the very short instruction about how to make for these trainings penetrate into one. The more profound they penetrate the deepest they get. No ethics involve that a later time somebody can take into politics, social chats....Zen is really wonderful as it can not be imitated.