Dhammanando wrote: ↑
Wed May 15, 2019 7:25 am
SarathW wrote: ↑
Mon May 13, 2019 9:25 am
What additional ethics you find in Buddhism which are not found in other religions?
In those suttas that make exclusivist claims of one sort or another, we don't find sīla mentioned as one of the things that only Buddhas are competent to teach and which are therefore absent in the dhammas of outsiders.
I suspect that ethics-related teachings that are unique to Buddhism would be limited to a handful of the more recondite Vinaya precepts, e.g., the rule that prohibits monks from sitting down abruptly on a chair or bench with detachable legs if it is situated on the second floor of a building with an incompletely planked floor. Or the one prohibiting us from accepting rugs made of pure black goats' wool. It may well be that these
have no counterpart elsewhere.
Gaze not about the streets of the city and wander not through its squares.
DooDoot wrote: ↑
Mon May 13, 2019 1:05 pm
Roaming the streets at unseemly hours. (DN 31)
The Jews have most of the Sigalovāda Sutta ethics covered in the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Sirach (aka "Ecclesiasticus") and their other wisdom books.
and don't forget the jewish laws against Evil Tongue.
Lashon Hara (Evil Tongue)
It is forbidden to speak demeaningly of one's friend, even if it be absolute truth. And this is termed everywhere by Chazal "lashon hara." (For if there were in his words an admixture of falsehood, by which his friend is demeaned even more, this is in the category of "motzi shem ra" [spreading a false report], in which his sin is far greater). And the speaker [of lashon hara] transgresses a negative commandment, viz. (Vayikra 19:16): "Do not go talebearing among your people." And this [lashon hara] is also in the category of rechiluth.
It is forbidden to speak lashon hara against one's friend, even if it is true, even before one, and, more so, before many. And the more listeners, the greater the sin of the speaker; for his friend is more greatly demeaned thereby, his taint being publicized before several people. Also, in doing so, he makes several people go astray in the issur of listening to lashon hara.
How great is the issur of lashon hara, which the Torah has forbidden even if true and in all modes. For not alone if he is careful to speak it only in private and to insist that it not be revealed to him [who is spoken about] is it forbidden, [for through this he also brings a curse upon himself, viz. (Devarim 27:24): "Cursed be he who smites his neighbor in secret"], but even if he knows that he would speak it even to his face, or actually speaks lashon hara to his face, even so it is forbidden and called "lashon hara." And in one respect, the issur is greater "to his face" than not to his face." For in his presence, aside from the issur of lashon hara, he [the speaker] clothes himself with the trait of brazenness and audacity, and arouses more strife thereby. And very often this leads also to the "whitening of (the other's) face (in shame)," as we have enlarged upon in the introduction concerning the negative commandment of (Vayikra 19:17): "Do not bear sin because of him."
It is forbidden to accept lashon hara according to the Torah, both in things "between man and his Maker" and things "between man and his neighbor." That is, we may not believe in our hearts that what is said is true. For, if we do, we will look down upon the one spoken of. And [this applies] even if he [the hearer] explicitly disagrees with what is said. For if not, he doubles the sin — speaking [(by being an accessory to the speaker)] and accepting. And the accepter transgresses (Shemoth 23:1): "You shall not bear a false report," concerning which Chazal have said in the Mechilta, that this is an exhortation against accepting lashon hara, aside from the other negative commandments and positive commandments adjoined to this, as we have written in the introduction. And Chazal have said (Pesachim 118a) that all who accept lashon hara deserve to be cast to the dogs, it being written "You shall not bear a false report," preceded by (Ibid 22:30): "To the dog shall you cast it." And they have also said (Rambam, Hilchoth Deoth 7:13): "The punishment of the accepter is grater than that of the teller."
and helping friends
If one sees that his friend wishes to enter into partnership with someone, and he feels that he will certainly be harmed by this, he must tell him to rescue him from that harm, but the following five conditions must be met:
They are: a) He must be careful not to immediately conclude that harm will result, but must reflect carefully from the beginning to see if the result will, indeed, be harmful.
b) He must not exaggerate the matter to be worse than it actually is.
c) His intent must be for benefit only; that is, to remove the harm from the first, and not because he hates the other.
(And in this third condition, we shall include yet another matter — that aside from his intending benefit and not being motivated by hatred, he must first reflect as to whether benefit will actually sprout from this — as opposed to what happens very often, that even if tells him, he will not listen to him, but will enter into partnership with him, and afterwards, when his partner angers him with something, he will tell him: "He was right when he told me not to become your partner," and the like. For such people, whom he recognizes to possess this evil trait of rechiluth, no heter is conceivable, for it makes these blind men stumble in the absolute negative commandment of rechiluth.)
d) If he can effect this benefit [in some other way] without having to speak badly of the other, he should do so.
e) All this is permitted only if absolute harm will not come to the one spoken of because of what is said about him. That is, they are not permitted to do him any positive harm, but only to deprive him of the good that might have come to him from the partnership. Even though [even] this is bad for him, in any event it is permitted. But if absolute harm comes to him because of what is said about him, it is forbidden to speak about him; for this would require other conditions, as will be explained below, the L–rd willing, in sections 5 and 6. And how much more so [is it forbidden] if he sees that his story would cause the subject great harm, more than the din prescribes (viz. below, section 5).
Basically it just gets more detailed into certain case scenarios and examples
If Ploni sees that Reuven wants to enter into partnership with Shimon, and Shimon does not know Reuven's nature, and Ploni knows Reuven well from the past — that he is indifferent to the money of others because of his bad nature — he should warn Shimon from the beginning not to enter into partnership with him, and there is no lashon hara in this. But in this, too, he must take great care that none of the conditions mentioned in Principle IX, section 2, are lacking.
It gets really detailed, almost like a legal contract.