If someone can supply it, I would be interested to see the reference for this.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.
Kamma is an amoral teaching?
Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?
Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?
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 outsamseva wrote:He was talking about Vinaya, which is extensive.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!!
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.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?
Life isn't systematic or a dichotomy as your scenarios depict. That is a completely valid answer.clw_uk wrote: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 ...I would deal with the situation in a wholesome way.
Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?
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.clw_uk wrote:ihrjordan -
So we can take actions which forward our happiness over others?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.
You sound like a Cyrenaic? Are you?
Re: Kamma is an amoral teaching?
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.