The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
For example the definition of when a human comes to be or when a human ceases to be? Are there times when it is appropriate to allow our own views which may be governed by religious belief to be overruled by the views of the society of which we are apart?
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
Coke or Pepsi?
But seriously now Mr Man, it's a personal choice whether someone bases their decisions on religion, society, how astronomical bodies line up, or the one-eyed one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater. And those are the only 4 choices.
Guess I'm not in a serious mood.
But seriously now Mr Man, it's a personal choice whether someone bases their decisions on religion, society, how astronomical bodies line up, or the one-eyed one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater. And those are the only 4 choices.
Guess I'm not in a serious mood.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
The teaching of the Buddha is timeless, not because of its relevance amongst technological, sociological, intellectual, quantum, etc., growth, but because it is a fundamental approach to ALL things which is not concerned with such superficial textures and goings on. While we can all find ways to apply the dhamma in a secondary, or tertiary manner and call it proper and complete, such moves will fall short of a producing the lasting results which will propel us towards liberation.
Regarding the OP: the dhamma can not actually be used to justify action. This is not to say you can't consult it and "clean up" a plan before you go through with it physically or verbally, but that is but a means to the crux. And if you are using a text to decide whether or not you can change a loved one's mind about having an abortion you are grasping at straws because you are suffering and it is your own craving setting that state of affairs into motion, not the friend and her decision to put the child first. Take the text and apply it to your own personal suffering and such things will become evident whether people are traveling in chariots, electric cars or worm holes.
Regarding the OP: the dhamma can not actually be used to justify action. This is not to say you can't consult it and "clean up" a plan before you go through with it physically or verbally, but that is but a means to the crux. And if you are using a text to decide whether or not you can change a loved one's mind about having an abortion you are grasping at straws because you are suffering and it is your own craving setting that state of affairs into motion, not the friend and her decision to put the child first. Take the text and apply it to your own personal suffering and such things will become evident whether people are traveling in chariots, electric cars or worm holes.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
Hi James
Well it's not absolutely a personal choice for example in the UK the courts have intervened to overide a parental decision to not allow a blood transfusion for their child.
Well it's not absolutely a personal choice for example in the UK the courts have intervened to overide a parental decision to not allow a blood transfusion for their child.
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
Hello Mr ManMr Man wrote:Are there times when it is appropriate to allow our own views which may be governed by religious belief to be overruled by the views of the society of which we are apart?
I think the touchstone is when the action/intention etc is skillful or wholesome or not (as explained by Buddha)
e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .ntbb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
Hi SDCSDC wrote:
Regarding the OP: the dhamma can not actually be used to justify action. This is not to say you can't consult it and "clean up" a plan before you go through with it physically or verbally, but that is but a means to the crux. And if you are using a text to decide whether or not you can change a loved one's mind about having an abortion you are grasping at straws because you are suffering and it is your own craving setting that state of affairs into motion, not the friend and her decision to put the child first. Take the text and apply it to your own personal suffering and such things will become evident whether people are traveling in chariots, electric cars or worm holes.
Well if the abhidhamma has a position on when life begins and if it doesn't correlate with the consensus view or the legal definition of today which position is the most appropriate to use when considering an action? Or when counselling a friend?
Outside of Buddhism their have been some horrendous events and the moral justification for these actions have been religious texts.
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
It seems that horrendous events have been justified using religious texts at times, consensus view at other times, and legal definitions at other times. Is there inherently some significant difference between the horrendous events that use each of these three justifications?Mr Man wrote: Well if the abhidhamma has a position on when life begins and if it doesn't correlate with the consensus view or the legal definition of today which position is the most appropriate to use when considering an action? Or when counselling a friend?
Outside of Buddhism their have been some horrendous events and the moral justification for these actions have been religious texts.
It might be useful to see if perhaps all three types of horrendous event have something in common, such as motivations based on varying degrees of influence from greed, aversion, and delusion. Identifying the necessary conditions for the arising of a horrendous event could allow for avoiding the creation of those conditions and thus prevent horrendous events.
To more directly address the original question, is there appropriateness independent of a value system?
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
The position is predicated on the gandhabba issue, which is discussed by Analayo:Mr Man wrote:Well if the abhidhamma has a position...
---Thus the point introduced in this way in the Assalayana Sutta is simply that Brahminical conceptions of caste purity only take into account the condition provided by the mother and father, assuming that their caste identity sufficiently accounts for the caste identity of the child. By employing Brahminical conceptions on the role of the gandhabba in relation to conception, the Buddha was able to point out an inconsistency in the Brahminical scheme, in as much the caste affiliation of the being to be reborn could not be determined. It may be from this original intent of the discussion of the three conditions for conception in the Assalayana Sutta that references to this presentation in other discourses and later works originated.
To employ already existing terms and ideas in order to express a particular point is in fact a recurrent feature of the expositions given by the Buddha in the early discourses. This appears to have been particularly the case with Brahminical notions and ideas. In this way, even the term Brahmin itself is reinterpreted in the discourses to stand for mental nobility. Similarly the three higher knowledges, tevijja, which for the Brahmins represent knowledge of the three Vedas, in early Buddhism come to stand for abilities open to anyone who is willing to undertake the required course of meditative training to attain them.
Modern medical facts simply override pre-scientific modes of understanding health & the life sciences generally; while the Buddha partook of his own contemporary medicine I think that's simply to be expected; His expertise is the Dhamma, not biology, and his use of contemporary medicine is not imprimatur that it is True.
It will be for each person to address their needs & actual motives in the moments of that situation, under advice from wise folk who understand the Dhamma (should they choose to consider such things). But extrapolating "life-at-conception" by taking gandhabba-ideation out of context, and further speculating that the specific fruit of kamma vis-a-vis rebirth occurs at conception and not another time, is to go far afield of Dhammic concerns, I think.
---
Parsing the Dhamma out from ancient cultural metaphysics-cum-medicine should prevent the arising of anxiety like this, I think...
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
Thank you culaavuso and daverupa for your thoughts - good stuff!
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
With respect to medical knowledge, consider the Sivaka Sutta. As Piya Tan writes, this sutta makes reference to early medical knowledge.
Now, are we to understand that e.g. those first three causes are Real & Actual and thus, that early Ayurvedic theories are Fact, or, are we to understand that the Buddha was saying that kamma was a cause of note, but that other causes, such as e.g. biological ones, obtained as well?
I think the shape of the Buddha's point is not found via a literal reading here...
Now, are we to understand that e.g. those first three causes are Real & Actual and thus, that early Ayurvedic theories are Fact, or, are we to understand that the Buddha was saying that kamma was a cause of note, but that other causes, such as e.g. biological ones, obtained as well?
I think the shape of the Buddha's point is not found via a literal reading here...
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
Choice is constrained in various ways of course, including by the laws of the land. But one can choose to break the law so it's not a "hard" constraint in this case.Mr Man wrote:Hi James
Well it's not absolutely a personal choice for example in the UK the courts have intervened to overide a parental decision to not allow a blood transfusion for their child.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: The morality of using ancient texts to justify action in the world today?
I just think this is an altogether superficial application of the teaching. While not totally fruitless it is far from being at its most productive - the teaching should be applied wholly and fundamentally which will gradually effect how things present themselves, eliminating the need for a situational dhammic litmus test.Mr Man wrote:Hi SDC
Well if the abhidhamma has a position on when life begins and if it doesn't correlate with the consensus view or the legal definition of today which position is the most appropriate to use when considering an action? Or when counselling a friend?
Having said that, the individual will decide what is most appropriate based on the knowledge they see as relevant - the degree to which the precepts play a part depends on their level of development. The whole thing is quite arbitrary no matter what the scriptures or science has to say. Though if you were to put a gun to my head and demand an answer I would say that you should always go with what you feel is the best, the most good you can muster.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3