buddhist ethics and cosmology

[nathanielfirst]

I have a difficult time understanding buddhist ethics... it seems strange to me how a tradition could be so ethical, as ethical as the most ethical western traditions, never kill, never harm etc., yet it's core goal is about ceasing to exist, not caring, becoming unattached, that seems out of keeping with strict , difficult to practice ethics.

is there something in the buddhist vioew of the universe, the cosmology/ontology of the world that allows ethics to take more of a focus than i would grasp (I am a beginner at buddhism, so pardon my ignorance)?

vaisheshika in hinduism categorize self, mind, alongside time, space, fire, water, earth (the elements) as constituents of the universe- so 'mind' is a real aspect of phenomenon. perhaps buddhism similar worldview of mental phenomenon as real parts of the universe leading to 'dependant origination' among other things, perhaps that is why a bad deed is so bad, even in the face of a religion pointed mainly, at nirvana

my question is hard to say. i guess it is in two parts:
1:why care about ethics if one is a buddhist? isn't the goal nirvana ? yet buddhism is so ethical.
2. is the reason ethics is a focus, because of some strange eastern metaphysics/ontology (that might categorize a 'bad deed' as being similar to a real part of the uiniverse, a cup, chair, tree, object, etc., ) ?

and if so, could someone who knows what they're talking about explain to me more in depth, how buddhism's ontology meshes with its ethics?

sorry for such a strange question by a beginner on a DIR forum, also.

 

[Engyo]

I have a difficult time understanding buddhist ethics... it seems strange to me how a tradition could be so ethical, as ethical as the most ethical western traditions, never kill, never harm etc., yet it's core goal is about ceasing to exist, not caring, becoming unattached, that seems out of keeping with strict , difficult to practice ethics.

is there something in the buddhist vioew of the universe, the cosmology/ontology of the world that allows ethics to take more of a focus than i would grasp (I am a beginner at buddhism, so pardon my ignorance)?

vaisheshika in hinduism categorize self, mind, alongside time, space, fire, water, earth (the elements) as constituents of the universe- so 'mind' is a real aspect of phenomenon. perhaps buddhism similar worldview of mental phenomenon as real parts of the universe leading to 'dependant origination' among other things, perhaps that is why a bad deed is so bad, even in the face of a religion pointed mainly, at nirvana

my question is hard to say. i guess it is in two parts:
1:why care about ethics if one is a buddhist? isn't the goal nirvana ? yet buddhism is so ethical.
2. is the reason ethics is a focus, because of some strange eastern metaphysics/ontology (that might categorize a 'bad deed' as being similar to a real part of the uiniverse, a cup, chair, tree, object, etc., ) ?

and if so, could someone who knows what they're talking about explain to me more in depth, how buddhism's ontology meshes with its ethics?

sorry for such a strange question by a beginner on a DIR forum, also.

Hi again, Nathaniel -

First, the core goal is about attaining perfect enlightenment, not ceasing to exist (at least for Mahayanists, anyway). Second, releasing attachment does NOT equate to not caring whatsoever. What releasing attachment does is to remove the emotional charge of dissapointment, dissatisfaction and so on. It does not mean that I cease to love, or to care, or to enjoy - it just means that I don't let the fact that these things are impermanent and often fleeting cause me emotional anguish; I accept that impermanence as a fact of life, and I am even learning that this can be a sweetener - these things are MORE precious becasue they don't last. Thus my practice helps me to both enjoy them to the fullest when they do occur, and to accept and be at peace with the fact that they pass.

In my understanding, the "ethical basis" you are perceiving would be the principle of karma. Buddhist ethics is really about living in the world in a way to maximize the potential to attain enlightenment. Killing, lying, stealing, and so on are causes whose karmic effects make it more difficult and take longer to attain enlightenment, so they become "unethical" per se. These actions are to be avoided, as they impede one's progress towards the ultimate goal. Such actions are not "good" or "bad" in and of themselves, but in how their karmic effects act upon the Buddhist practitioner.

I hope this makes a little more sense..........

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have a difficult time understanding buddhist ethics... it seems strange to me how a tradition could be so ethical, as ethical as the most ethical western traditions, never kill, never harm etc., yet it's core goal is about ceasing to exist, not caring, becoming unattached, that seems out of keeping with strict , difficult to practice ethics.

Ceasing to exist, not caring, becoming unattached (as that in separation) is a common misconception that crops up time to time when initially approaching Buddhism. The "goal" here is direct realization of what is experienced such as that of impermanence and the manner of ego. Basically with perfect understanding through experience, one releases "enlightenment" of which doesn't negate any ethical action and can in fact cause one to be more mindful in their interactions.

is there something in the Buddhist view of the universe, the cosmology/ontology of the world that allows ethics to take more of a focus than i would grasp (I am a beginner at Buddhism, so pardon my ignorance)?

washrag in hinduism categorize self, mind, alongside time, space, fire, water, earth (the elements) as constituents of the universe- so 'mind' is a real aspect of phenomenon. perhaps buddhism similar worldview of mental phenomenon as real parts of the universe leading to 'dependant origination' among other things, perhaps that is why a bad deed is so bad, even in the face of a religion pointed mainly, at nirvana

Ethics comes naturally as relations are made. Knowing that in giving compassion, compassion is more often given. The effects of mental manifestations can become real through ones action. So in that respect mental origins can be real enough in that it manifests a particular action creating an effect.

my question is hard to say. i guess it is in two parts:
1:why care about ethics if one is a buddhist? isn't the goal nirvana ? yet buddhism is so ethical.

I care enough to know that if my thoughts and actions are generally kind and caring, life and living generally becomes much more pleasant and happy.

2. is the reason ethics is a focus, because of some strange eastern metaphysics/ontology (that might categorize a 'bad deed' as being similar to a real part of the uiniverse, a cup, chair, tree, object, etc., ) ?

and if so, could someone who knows what they're talking about explain to me more in depth, how buddhism's ontology meshes with its ethics?

It all needs to be directly experienced to correctly give an answer to this. Its simply not an answer that can be intellectually related well. If at all.

sorry for such a strange question by a beginner on a DIR forum, also.

The only thing strange is that guy with the sunglasses, the wheelchair and the glove. Did I mention his doctorate?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Wouldn’t Buddhists just refer cosmology to the best cosmologists of their time? Because after all religion has a history of not been particularly good at it.

 

[Engyo]

Interestingly enough, Buddhist cosmology talks of worlds and world systems making up a nearly infinite universe, which also exists for incalculable amounts of time. This is in sutras which were first written down somewhere around the first century BCE or so.

From the Lotus Sutra Chapter 16.

[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]"Suppose a person were to take five hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million nayuta asamkhya thousand-million-fold worlds and grind them to dust. Then, moving eastward [through the universe], each time he passes five hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million nayuta asamkhya worlds he drops a particle of dust. He continues eastward in this way until he has finished dropping all the particles. Good men, what is your opinion? Can the total number of all these worlds be imagined or calculated?" [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]The bodhisattva Maitreya and the others said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, these worlds are immeasurable, boundless--one cannot calculate their number, nor does the mind have the power to encompass them. Even all the voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas with their wisdom free of outflows could not imagine or understand how many there are. Although we abide in the stage of avivartika, we cannot comprehend such a matter. World-Honored One, these worlds are immeasurable and boundless." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]At that time the Buddha said to the multitude of great bodhisattvas: "Good men, now I will state this to you clearly. Suppose all these worlds, whether they received a particle of dust or not, are once more reduced to dust. Let one particle represent one kalpa. The time that has passed since I attained Buddhahood surpasses this by a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million nayuta asamkhya kalpas. [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[LuisDantas]

my question is hard to say. i guess it is in two parts:
1:why care about ethics if one is a buddhist? isn't the goal nirvana ? yet buddhism is so ethical.

It is impossible to attain Nirvana without good ethics, due to interdependent origination and the Four Noble Truths.

2. is the reason ethics is a focus, because of some strange eastern metaphysics/ontology (that might categorize a 'bad deed' as being similar to a real part of the uiniverse, a cup, chair, tree, object, etc., ) ?

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

[zenzero]

Friend nathielfirst,

yet it's core goal is about ceasing to exist, not caring, becoming unattached, that seems out of keeping with strict , difficult to practice ethics.

The sentence is mostly in order except the words "not caring" rather it is to be MOST CARING that one needs to practice.

1:why care about ethics if one is a buddhist? isn't the goal nirvana ? yet buddhism is so ethical.
2. is the reason ethics is a focus, because of some strange eastern metaphysics/ontology (that might categorize a 'bad deed' as being similar to a real part of the uiniverse, a cup, chair, tree, object, etc., ) ?

Friend one simply needs understanding and then realization of the understanding through practice on the path to *nirvana*.
NIRVANA - is a state were the MIND is totally still and thoughts do not originate any longer as all thoughts drop in such a state.
Whatever you are writing are from thoughts themselves and so the understanding needs to develop from HERE-NOW that the MIND needs to be STILLED and for this one practices which becomes a path or a way and the path Gautama showed is one such path which is the MIDDLE path, never on the extremes; never saying YES or NO just somewhere where both are possible, any one is possible or even none are possible.
A state where everything is in a balance like the pendulum that swings from one end to the other and only when it crosses the center that it is still without being pulled or pushed by any forces from any side a state of *NOTHINGNESS* but total WATCHFULLNESS.
Meaning there is nothing as good or bad as they are decided by the mind which itself is fed by the environment one lives in, one's own past karma etc. By being watchful such actions of the mind drops and slowly the state of no-mind or no-thoughts emerges.

All in all a constant practice of awareness is all there is to towards being a buddha!

Love & rgds