Prev Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Please log in to reply 58 replies to this topic

[Xangsamhua]

rockyysdt, on 2011-12-03 19:01:22, said:

What we are discussing here is the difference between moral judgement (sin) and the Buddhas precepts.

Moral sin requires someone to make a judgement whilst the precepts are a training guide.

For example some may say that committing adultery is a sin and is not negotiable.

The Buddhist precept which one could say is related is that "I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.".

One can say that committing adultery in itself is not wrong (provided all parties are in agreement).
Should any party become hurt due to this act then it becomes misconduct.
One may decide to avoid such acts as it is unwise to place oneself in a situation where others are harmed.
The act itself is not wrong.

The overriding factors regarding the precepts is the practice of avoiding hurt or harm to others, whilst sin moralizes what is and is not sinful.

The precept "I undertake the training practice to refrain from taking life" is much more subtle than the moral directive "thou shalt not kill".

The nature of our path and practice is designed to soften the heart.
The very act of taking a life is desensitizing and in the opposite direction.

Well put, Rocky.  

[canuckamuck]

rockyysdt, on 2011-12-03 19:01:22, said:

What we are discussing here is the difference between moral judgement (sin) and the Buddhas precepts.

Moral sin requires someone to make a judgement whilst the precepts are a training guide.

For example some may say that committing adultery is a sin and is not negotiable.

The Buddhist precept which one could say is related is that "I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.".

One can say that committing adultery in itself is not wrong (provided all parties are in agreement).
Should any party become hurt due to this act then it becomes misconduct.
One may decide to avoid such acts as it is unwise to place oneself in a situation where others are harmed.
The act itself is not wrong.

The overriding factors regarding the precepts is the practice of avoiding hurt or harm to others, whilst sin moralizes what is and is not sinful.

The precept "I undertake the training practice to refrain from taking life" is much more subtle than the moral directive "thou shalt not kill".

The nature of our path and practice is designed to soften the heart.
The very act of taking a life is desensitizing and in the opposite direction.

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.
Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Edited by canuckamuck, 2011-12-03 20:31:38.

[dutchguest]

Xangsamhua, on 2011-12-03 15:49:29, said:

When I was a Theology student we were told that the Christian notion of "sin" could be traced back to Aristotle's use of the term "harmatia", meaning "to miss the mark".  That was the term used in Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, i.e. the Septuagint (2nd century BCE).  However, harmatia could mean intended wrongdoing, accidental wrongdoing or error resulting from ignorance.  Using terms like wrongdoing and error of course imply a moral judgement.

To speak of Buddhism lacking a concept of sin would imply that there is no moral judgement in Buddhism, that actions simply have beneficial or harmful consequences, which in turn impact on the post-mortem destiny of the agent.  If this were so, to rape a child would be seen not so much as immoral, but unwise, because the karmic consequences of the action would be harmful to the rapist, regardless of the consequences to the child.  Most people, however, would shy away from such a utilitarian view, and it clearly runs counter to the Buddhist ethic of loving-kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna).

To suggest that Buddhists are judged by the universe (i.e. karma as a cosmic law) implies that there is a universal judge who maintains a moral balance through karmic law.  Buddhists are not supposed to see it that way, however.  To do so suggests Deism.  Karma is, on the one hand, simply the natural consequences of actions; but on the other, it is more than just a natural process, as karmic consequences proceed not so much from the action itself as the intentions of the actor.  This clearly implies a moral dimension.

How would it work in practice?  The man who rapes a child will experience the karmic consequences in proportion to the viciousness of his intentions.  If he follows some primitive religious cult that values deflowering 13 year-old girls he would presumably suffer less severe karmic consequences that if he does it simply because pedophiliac lust and opportunity are both present.  Natural justice, if there is such a thing, would suggest that the effect of his actions on the child should also be factored in to the karmic impact accruing to the rapist, but I don't know if it does in Buddhist teaching on Karma.

A law that rewards and punishes on the basis of good and bad intentions implies a notion of sin, and of personal responsibility for doing good and avoiding evil.  The working out of this law through rebirths based in part on karmic effects suggests a soteriology, a pathway to salvation, or liberation, based on the cultivation of good intentions and the avoidance of bad ones (implicit in greed, hatred, ignorance, and the derivatives of these).  Buddhism is not just an intellectual exercise therefore; it is fundamentally a moral philosophy, though it is able to support its claims with intellectually sound arguments rather than appeals to revelation, faith in tradition, spiritual authority and the like.

                        I once heard the original meaning of "sin" is forgetfulness, I think I heard it from Osho who also gave some evidence, but I forgot what evidence, linguistic or other. Also a short search on the internet did not make me much wiser in this respect. So let that be what it is for the moment.

My concept of wisdom includes that you act with compassion and that you are responsible for what you are doing. It is not (only) a rational calculation of the mind about what is the right way to act or speak, not an internalized God or conscience that tells you what is right or wrong, but an intuitive, natural attitude towards live.

So in my view rape and other sexual perversions are an unnatural behaviour, behaviour of a sleeping, unawakened, unconscious person who is not aware of the implications and consequences of his acts and will suffer because of that in this or possible future lives. Also compassion is not a moral concept but a natural quality of somebody who is aware. Of course if you say suffering is bad you can give everything a moralistic flavour.

In my view the existence of karmic laws of the universe do not necessarily mean that there is a judge or god, but that it are laws of nature, just like the gravitation.

[Brucenkhamen]

canuckamuck, on 2011-12-03 20:28:01, said:

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.
Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Of course Buddhism has a moral core, but whether the word "sin" is appropriate for breaches of that core is another question.

Looking through various online dictionaries some definitions of the word "sin" seem appropriate to Buddhism, others not.

Definitions in terms of breaches of a moral code seem ok, in terms of breaches of a law, divine law, or God's law are inappropriate as a description of the Buddhist precepts.

I find that Buddhists who haven't had a western upbringing often don't have a problem with the use of the word "sin" in Buddhism, but those who have do.

I think the problem is partly the judeo christian baggage that comes with the term and partly the word "sin" is both a verb and a noun.

When used as a verb to label specific acts of naughtiness it's not too far off the Buddhist concept of unskillful action, when used as a noun to describe being in a state of immorality or separation from God it is totally inappropriate.

Buddhism is focussed on abandoning unskillful action by learning and wisdom rather than judging the state a person may be in by their actions.

If that isn't enough reason not to use it the fact that the Thai word for precept is "sin" avoiding confusion seems enough reason not to use it in Thailand.

[Xangsamhua]

dutchguest, on 2011-12-03 22:05:00, said:

I once heard the original meaning of "sin" is forgetfulness, I think I heard it from Osho who also gave some evidence, but I forgot what evidence, linguistic or other. Also a short search on the internet did not make me much wiser in this respect. So let that be what it is for the moment.

My concept of wisdom includes that you act with compassion and that you are responsible for what you are doing. It is not (only) a rational calculation of the mind about what is the right way to act or speak, not an internalized God or conscience that tells you what is right or wrong, but an intuitive, natural attitude towards live.

So in my view rape and other sexual perversions are an unnatural behaviour, behaviour of a sleeping, unawakened, unconscious person who is not aware of the implications and consequences of his acts and will suffer because of that in this or possible future lives. Also compassion is not a moral concept but a natural quality of somebody who is aware. Of course if you say suffering is bad you can give everything a moralistic flavour.

In my view the existence of karmic laws of the universe do not necessarily mean that there is a judge or god, but that it are laws of nature, just like the gravitation.

Morning Dutchguest.

"Forgetfulness" seems as good a root for "sin" as anything else.  I guess, if one is attending, is fully "awake", then one will see the unwisdom of harmful acts.  Actually, 'forgetfulness" seems more helpful than "missing the mark".

I think we agree that wisdom (panna) and morality (sila) go together.  This is a core principle of Buddhist teaching.  And yet they are not the same.  So can one act wisely, but not morally and vice versa?  And how does one decide if an act has been well-intended (moral), but unwise?  Only in hindsight?  For example, giving money out of compassion to people who can't manage it or who use it for harmful purposes may be unwise.  But the compassion itself, does it accrue good or bad karma?

As for intuition, I'm not sure.  Aristotle, via Aquinas, gave Western theology the proposition that Natural Law is the source of human conscience.  That is, we know in our hearts that it is a violation of natural law and natural justice to commit murder, steal, rape, lie, etc.  Hence, intuitively we know right from wrong at least basically, though there may be complicating circumstances.  However, the concept of natural law as applied to ethics is contested.  Naturalists argue that conscience has evolved along with everything else about us in response to Darwinian principles and the evolution of cultural values (and taboos).  Hence, do we shy away from acts of violence against the vulnerable or feel remorse afterwards because we sense intuitively that we've violated universal natural law or is there another, naturalistic, explanation?

Whatever the possible explanations, Buddhists believe, as you have said, that wisdom and morality are inseparable from individual responsibility.  Although Karma seems a relentless and, once having been accrued, inescapable force, personal responsibility for one's actions is at the core of Buddhadharma.  Ascribing blame to one's upbringing or social circumstances or mental condition doesn't hold enough water.  There may be mitigating circumstances, but otherwise one is responsible for one's actions.  The belief that all wickedness constitutes not sin but mental illness does not gain traction in the Buddhist worldview.

(I'm not sure how coherent all this is.  I'm thinking aloud.)

Edited by Xangsamhua, 2011-12-04 07:52:03.

[canuckamuck]

Brucenkhamen, on 2011-12-04 04:23:22, said:

canuckamuck, on 2011-12-03 20:28:01, said:

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.
Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Of course Buddhism has a moral core, but whether the word "sin" is appropriate for breaches of that core is another question.

Looking through various online dictionaries some definitions of the word "sin" seem appropriate to Buddhism, others not.

Definitions in terms of breaches of a moral code seem ok, in terms of breaches of a law, divine law, or God's law are inappropriate as a description of the Buddhist precepts.

I find that Buddhists who haven't had a western upbringing often don't have a problem with the use of the word "sin" in Buddhism, but those who have do.

I think the problem is partly the judeo christian baggage that comes with the term and partly the word "sin" is both a verb and a noun.

When used as a verb to label specific acts of naughtiness it's not too far off the Buddhist concept of unskillful action, when used as a noun to describe being in a state of immorality or separation from God it is totally inappropriate.

Buddhism is focussed on abandoning unskillful action by learning and wisdom rather than judging the state a person may be in by their actions.

If that isn't enough reason not to use it the fact that the Thai word for precept is "sin" avoiding confusion seems enough reason not to use it in Thailand.

I like this answer and it is true that English can be a problem and so can the prevalence of Christophobia in western culture. But in Thailand the term บาป works quite well in Christian and Buddhist terminology.
Xang, I like your answers as well.

[dutchguest]

Xangsamhua, on 2011-12-04 07:51:09, said:

dutchguest, on 2011-12-03 22:05:00, said:

I once heard the original meaning of "sin" is forgetfulness, I think I heard it from Osho who also gave some evidence, but I forgot what evidence, linguistic or other. Also a short search on the internet did not make me much wiser in this respect. So let that be what it is for the moment.

My concept of wisdom includes that you act with compassion and that you are responsible for what you are doing. It is not (only) a rational calculation of the mind about what is the right way to act or speak, not an internalized God or conscience that tells you what is right or wrong, but an intuitive, natural attitude towards live.

So in my view rape and other sexual perversions are an unnatural behaviour, behaviour of a sleeping, unawakened, unconscious person who is not aware of the implications and consequences of his acts and will suffer because of that in this or possible future lives. Also compassion is not a moral concept but a natural quality of somebody who is aware. Of course if you say suffering is bad you can give everything a moralistic flavour.

In my view the existence of karmic laws of the universe do not necessarily mean that there is a judge or god, but that it are laws of nature, just like the gravitation.

Morning Dutchguest.

"Forgetfulness" seems as good a root for "sin" as anything else.  I guess, if one is attending, is fully "awake", then one will see the unwisdom of harmful acts.  Actually, 'forgetfulness" seems more helpful than "missing the mark".

I think we agree that wisdom (panna) and morality (sila) go together.  This is a core principle of Buddhist teaching.  And yet they are not the same.  So can one act wisely, but not morally and vice versa?  And how does one decide if an act has been well-intended (moral), but unwise?  Only in hindsight?  For example, giving money out of compassion to people who can't manage it or who use it for harmful purposes may be unwise.  But the compassion itself, does it accrue good or bad karma?

As for intuition, I'm not sure.  Aristotle, via Aquinas, gave Western theology the proposition that Natural Law is the source of human conscience.  That is, we know in our hearts that it is a violation of natural law and natural justice to commit murder, steal, rape, lie, etc.  Hence, intuitively we know right from wrong at least basically, though there may be complicating circumstances.  However, the concept of natural law as applied to ethics is contested.  Naturalists argue that conscience has evolved along with everything else about us in response to Darwinian principles and the evolution of cultural values (and taboos).  Hence, do we shy away from acts of violence against the vulnerable or feel remorse afterwards because we sense intuitively that we've violated universal natural law or is there another, naturalistic, explanation?

Whatever the possible explanations, Buddhists believe, as you have said, that wisdom and morality are inseparable from individual responsibility.  Although Karma seems a relentless and, once having been accrued, inescapable force, personal responsibility for one's actions is at the core of Buddhadharma.  Ascribing blame to one's upbringing or social circumstances or mental condition doesn't hold enough water.  There may be mitigating circumstances, but otherwise one is responsible for one's actions.  The belief that all wickedness constitutes not sin but mental illness does not gain traction in the Buddhist worldview.

(I'm not sure how coherent all this is.  I'm thinking aloud.)

      Morning Xang.

I will as a sundaymorning sermon add a few thoughts:




I agree that a naturalist explanation of everything, including morals, can be a dangerous undertaking in which you can easily go astray. Nevertheless nature is the only reality, the only thing that really exists. The rest are social constructs and conditionings. As we are not fully aware of our conditioning and a great part of it has become unconscious, a mistake often made is to ascribe something, some morals that originate in the cultural, social environment to human nature. As Buddhism tries to go beyond the temporal, local, social conditioning and is looking for more eternal truths and does not believe in a almighty god to give a ready-made set of morals, I think you must look at nature and human nature as a base for a Buddhist morality.




I think the Buddha once said that the functioning of karma is very complicated and not so easy to grasp in its totality. Idealiter, if one is fully aware of everything, when one is acting with good intentions the resulting karma will be positive. As we do not live in  an ideal world and people are not fully aware of what they are doing, things become complicated. Good intentions may of an unawakened person may not be enough to create a better world.

[Xangsamhua]

Brucenkhamen, on 2011-12-04 04:23:22, said:

canuckamuck, on 2011-12-03 20:28:01, said:

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.
Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Of course Buddhism has a moral core, but whether the word "sin" is appropriate for breaches of that core is another question.

Looking through various online dictionaries some definitions of the word "sin" seem appropriate to Buddhism, others not.

Definitions in terms of breaches of a moral code seem ok, in terms of breaches of a law, divine law, or God's law are inappropriate as a description of the Buddhist precepts.

I find that Buddhists who haven't had a western upbringing often don't have a problem with the use of the word "sin" in Buddhism, but those who have do.

I think the problem is partly the judeo christian baggage that comes with the term and partly the word "sin" is both a verb and a noun.

When used as a verb to label specific acts of naughtiness it's not too far off the Buddhist concept of unskillful action, when used as a noun to describe being in a state of immorality or separation from God it is totally inappropriate.

Buddhism is focussed on abandoning unskillful action by learning and wisdom rather than judging the state a person may be in by their actions.

If that isn't enough reason not to use it the fact that the Thai word for precept is "sin" avoiding confusion seems enough reason not to use it in Thailand.

Bruce, I don't have any argument with what you say, apart from your perception of Judaeo-Christian understandings of sin (and guilt) as "baggage".

There may be a lot of baggage in the inherited Judaeo-Christian worldview on many things, but I'm not sure if awareness of and the desire to avoid sin is one of them, except in its exaggerated and distorted form - "I am a miserable sinner", etc. This was derived largely from Augustine's residual Manichaeism and Calvin's legalism.  It had nothing to do with Judaism and was softened in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity by the institution of Penance (Confession).  (I think “sin” in Judaism is a more collective thing – Israel’s disobedience.)  

Breaches of a moral code, where it is also rational (say the Buddhist one), could be rightly labelled "sins", as you have suggested.  The moral code being based on reason, breaches of it would also be "unskilful".  However, if a man claimed to repent of raping a child, I would be less convinced if he said "I have performed an unskilful act" than if he said "I have done something bad, for which I am truly sorry".

[dutchguest]

I think any morals in Buddhism can be traced back to the physical reality that man (and also animals) do not like pain and suffering. It is an instinctive reaction that can be seen even in unicellular organisms that are downsizing and trying to avert and distance themselves from the cause of the pain. So in essence there are no metafysical postulations in Buddhism about how people and animals should behave. As nature becomes aware of itself in the form of humans the role of the mind becomes more important in dealing with these instincts.