Kamma is an amoral teaching?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?

Post by waterchan »

seeker242 wrote: I think I remember reading somewhere that the Buddha said that refraining from unethical actions, even for completely selfish reasons, is still better than engaging in them. Can't recall where atm, but it makes sense to say abstinence from unethical action will always be better than non-abstinence from unethical action, regardless of the reason IMO.
If someone can supply it, I would be interested to see the reference for this.
User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2964
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?

Post by Bundokji »

samseva wrote:
Bundokji wrote:I think ethics belongs to the conventional while Kamma to the ultimate, and I don't understand how Sujato concluded that the conventional is broader than the ultimate!!
He was talking about Vinaya, which is extensive.
When I answered I confused Dhamma Niyana with Kamma Niyana (I am not sure what I was thinking lol), maybe because morality is man made and in my mind, everything that is man made is limited. However, I admit that my answer was non-sense and I thank you for pointing this out :smile:
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?

Post by samseva »

clw_uk wrote:
I would deal with the situation in a wholesome way.
That isn't an answer. Why are you so reluctant to state what you would do? It's quite perplexing, unless of course you don't know what you would do in terms of whether to kill or not ...
Life isn't systematic or a dichotomy as your scenarios depict. That is a completely valid answer.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?

Post by ihrjordan »

clw_uk wrote:ihrjordan -

That's really the defintion of someone who is unethical, one who's actions are out of line with their ultimate desire which is always happiness.
So we can take actions which forward our happiness over others?

You sound like a Cyrenaic? Are you?
Your question doesn't make much sense. According to Buddhism when you help yourself, you help others and when you help others you help yourself. I'ts only those with the wrong ideas of what constitutes happiness that spread harm to others to get pleasure.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?

Post by ihrjordan »

And I doubt I would be on Dhammawheel rather than http://forums.philosophyforums.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if I identified as Cyrenaic...If you ask me Western philosophy has totally missed the mark.
Post Reply