Are Buddhist ethics and Buddhist liberation two things that can be approached isolated or are they necessarily intertwined?
>>8197057
>8197057
Yes, they can.
/thread
>>8197060
So one can be a murderous cunt acting only in one's self-interest and be enlightened?
>>8197096
Sort of.
At least what most people refer to when they talk about enlightenment (the phenomenon that can occur during meditation) can happen regardless.
Case in point:
Shoko Asahara
If we are talking "true enlightenment", then no. And the other one probably comes easier when you aren't a cunt.
>>8197328
What about cuntism prohibits true enlightenment?
I don't think so. Taking the example given before, I don't think you could "be a murderous cunt acting only in one's self-interest and be enlightened", because being enlightened is going beyond the notion of self, you realize theres really no "I" to begin with. Having get rid of that, there's no source to do such acts.
Having theoretical understanding of buddhist practices and/or being able to develop a state of deep sadhana isn't synonymous with being enlightened at all. From what I've read Shoko Asahara just had messiah complex and read some Vajrayana philosophy which he totally misenterpreted if he reallty had anything to do with most of the things he was accused of.
>>8197563
>being enlightened is going beyond the notion of self, you realize theres really no "I" to begin with. Having get rid of that, there's no source to do such acts.
Doesn't enlightened go beyond the notions of 'other selves' as well, realising there's no 'them' to begin with either? And realising that, isn't it so that there's no reason to refrain from such acts?
>>8197538
If you are a cunt, chances are you don't understand interdependence.
Which is kind of the core aspects of enlightenment.
I guess hypotetically, you could undertsand it after being a cunt, but the general consensus is that enlightenment isn' exactly like a switch and has more to do with habit.
>>8197575
>If you are a cunt, chances are you don't understand interdependence.
Could you elabor8?
>>8197574
Indeed, but why do that then? You don't refrain from such acts because they are bad of because they may harm someone, but because there's really no point in acting like that at all. Why would you do such things? All answers I can think of have to do with and "I" that would make something out of such situation.
>>8197612
You could ask the same thing about eating and breathing and such.
>>8197588
I won't explain the entire fucking Boddhidharma, but I'll give you the short answer:
In Western philosophical terms, there are no "single things" in and of themselves.
This includes you. (And the delusion that "you" and your body are somehow seperate things.)
Fully realizing this (among other things) makes it pretty difficult to act on related delusions like greed, which are born from suffering.
You act in accord to the natural state of things. Desires are obviously still part of this, but they stop becoming the governing factor.
>From what I've read Shoko Asahara just had messiah complex and read some Vajrayana philosophy which he totally misenterpreted if he reallty had anything to do with most of the things he was accused of.
I read a piece by an Osho who happened to get a lot of Shoko Asaharas desciples in, after they disbanded. He read Shoko's books and such and realized that many of the experiences were very similar to what he experienced in meditation. This led him to believe that one of the reasons Shoko Asahara developed that god complex, was because he had thos overwhelming experiences but having no teacher to put it into perspective for him. (Which in Zen often means "Oh, okay. Go back to sitting.")
>>8197642
I don't see how realising there are no single things would prevent you from hurting people any more than it would prevent you from plucking apples.
>>8197774
Because you stop believing that you have to or want to do any of it.
Also I guess the Bodhidharma kind of assumes people are pro-social at their core. Which is true, but obviously kind of a dogma, if you chose to think of Buddhism as just a theoretical practice.
>>8197096
see imperial japan
unless we want to claim "no true zen buddhists"
>>8197820
>Because you stop believing that you have to or want to do any of it.
Yes, but that would go for everything, not just the not being a cunt part. So I'd think that such a realisation would lead to amoralism rather than any specific set of ethics.
As far as I know Zen does have less of a moralist streak than other Buddhisms though.
>>8197633
>>8197774
The answer to this have to do with way most buddhist schools see human reincarnation. Having a human body is really precious, and though the awareness which most people identify as a "self" goes beyond this existence, not in every circumstance that you'll find yourself while wandering in samsara will provide the right conditions fro practicing the dharma (and eventually becoming enlightened). Human existence has the right conditions for practicing for learning, understanding and practiging the dharma, no breathing or starving to death would be silly from that perspective. Even though most enlightened masters probably wouldn't really mind about dying, the do value this existence anyways, because they can teach others the dharma, and in that way relieve them from their suffering, which is a key point in Mahayana buddhism, you don't seek enlightenment for your own benefit, but for the sake of all sentient beings. It is because of this last point that killing others just for fucking around would make absolutely no sense under a buddhist scope. Going back to Shoko, vajrayana or mantrayana is grounded in mahayana philosophy, that's why is actions baffle me, it's like he just liked the esoteric part of those kind of practices.
>>8197850
There is no "morality" in Buddhism, really.
The Eightfold Path is more like a general guide. As in something you ought to do, if you wanted to practice Buddhism.
I think what most people stumble over is the deeply rooted notion in Western thought, that humans are inherently evil or "morally ambiguous and can't be trusted on their own".
So they instantly spazz out the second someone suggests that everything will be fine if we get closer to our nature. (Another Western notion: Nature and especially your body = BAD or at least unpure!)
Obviously there are Buddhists who would say otherwise, but this has been the general consensus of every scholar I ever read/listened to.
>>8197872
I don't think reincarnation has to be a necessary factor here. But yeah, in essence it's about it being silly not to practice dharma when you can.
And I guess we could start talking about kamma, but that shit is complicated as hell in Buddhism and others have explained it better than we could.
>Going back to Shoko, vajrayana or mantrayana is grounded in mahayana philosophy, that's why is actions baffle me, it's like he just liked the esoteric part of those kind of practices.
Why? Are those traditions in any way superior?Caught you delusioning, m8.
Nah. He was just a random dude, who was obsessed with religions (but only half-understanding them), meditated a ton, has a spiritual experience but no teacher to set him straight.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if much of the Salafist/Islamist fierceness stems from similar experiences they had in deep prayer.
Hard not to think you are special or especially insightful, when you feel like that.
>>8197057
there is no morality as you think of it in the dhamma.
in the dhamma, there is a polarization of thoughts, speech, act:
-you have the pole of the material hedonist
-you have the pole of the spiritual hedonist
-you have the pole of nibanna
the goal is to understand
-that you begin as material hedonist
-that material hedonism is just here to support spiritual hedonism [=the jhanas, samatha]
-the jhanas are here to support the vision of the dhamma
-so far you have pure faith and you try to understand the dhamma (and fail)
-once you see the dhamma, you lose faith to gain certainty, you stop reflecting on all the dhamma and start practicing the dhamma
you go deeper into tranquility and paramitas, precisely because you know that what you feel and think is rubbish to be happy (and that rituals will never get you anything by themselves, that you must do the work yourself]
-then you have nibanna
what people call morality is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is not* their self'' and what people call meditation is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is* their self''.
>>8197918
>there is no morality as you think of it in the dhamma.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Moral_virtues_group:_paths_3.2C_4_and_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics
the more I think about nibanna, the more I see it has dump a poo.
at first, you do not know that you have poo in you
then you notice it
you understand that you just need to let it go
then you clearly feel it ready to leave
once it left, you know that it left and you feel light and serene.
>>8198270
the dhamma begins with right view, not with right action.
>>8198448
Morality is Right View AND Right Action.
>buddhism
ah, I see your favorite mystery crank-turning outfit color is saffron
>>8197057
Secular buddhism and Zen focus much more about ethics, morality, conduct and self-mastery than liberation or Buddhist metaphysical concepts of existence and reality. Also, why would the study of either element necessitate another from a disinterested viewpoint?
>>8200887
>Secular buddhism and Zen focus much more about ethics, morality, conduct and self-mastery than liberation
But Budddhist liberation is pretty much the end-point of all the things you talked about, how do they not focus on it?
>>8198448
You are not meaking any sense. It does'nt matter which precept is first in the Noble Eightfold Path, in fact you have to practice as a Noble Eightfold path. You don't practice first right viw, then right intention, then right speech and so on, you practice them all at once, as an eightfold path.
Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKbO4bLDQM
>>8200912
I'm guessing what he meant was that there is less meta-physical stuff among those groups.
At at least they consider it quite pointless to talk about.
