Jojola wrote:I do see what could be considered admirable about your expectation but is expecting people to behave certain ways dhamma?
I certainly don't think it's something the Buddha did, the reason I think so is because that is a big dukkha red flag and can lead us to act on dukkha and create more for ourselves and others.
Is the Patimokkha in accordance with the Dhamma?
The rules for monks are a system of expectations about how monks are supposed to behave. If you want to argue that the Patimokkha is not in accordance with the Dhamma -- then I don't know what to say ...
Consider the BrahmaViharas, are they and ethics not mutually exclusive?
Do elaborate what you mean by that.
The patimokkha are voluntary
undertakings that when practiced helps lead to results of wisdom, meditation, and virtue. The Buddhas, or any Arahants heart/mind has been fulfilled and satsified via release/unbinding, it can't rejoice in anything of the world or what goes in it any more than it can be disappointed by same, hence there's no expectation from anyone (that matters) other than your own self.
If you succeed in the undertakings, there is knowledge on why. If you don't, there is knowledge on why. But as for praise/blame, expectation/disapointments; he didn't start the sangha and lay out the rules with expectations, he did so because if followed it would work, simple cause and effect that's all. Sure if you broke them he'd kick you out but that's out of compassion for the rest of sangha and the offender himself, because it's obviously not his time to follow the path it wasn't doing him any good, it's all part of the brahma viharas not idealogies of right and wrong, which speaking of....
And i'd be glad to elaborate on what I mean about ethics vs. brahma viharas; an easy example to use would be Angulimala who was a serial killer, came from and trained by a clan of serial killing masters. He was a very prolific distributor of death and destruction in the world, in some accounts he was up to 999 people killed and crossed paths with Buddha and targeted him to be his thousandth murder. Pretty unethical no?
But what did the Buddha do? Out of loving-kindess, compassion, empathic joy, and equanimity he saw there was a man whos dukkha and suffering was so great it was spilling out in his actions than have ran amok and caushing endless dukkha for everyone around him in the form of killing. So the Buddha taught him. He became enlightened and was rewarded with the highest blessing, freedom, and happiness a human being can attain; he was rewarded by his effort more delight than we can ever imagine and he was a serial killer, but now no longer harming others and in fact set an example for us all!
I think it's also mentioned in the commentaries that a lot of people were upset by this cause he pretty much got away with murder.
So you see, The Buddha, the Dhamma, with the Brahma Viharas, it's a matter of "if there's suffering, put it out", that's very radical! there was absolutely no concern whatsoever whether or not his suffering was deserved
by some flase-view-standard of "ethic morality".
At least according to my understanding there is no right or wrong relevant, simply what is conducive to dukkha and what is conducive to its cessation, which requires the brahma viharas as a foundation for that practice, which are attitudes we generate and radiate boundlessly towards all beings regardless of character. But if you start judging by an ethical standard you start becoming exclusive, whereas the viharas are to be all inclusive. That is what I mean by that.