Is the motivation for not lying a selfish one then? Wishing to not cause harm to one’s self? What about others? Does the motivation for not lying involve any non-selfish motivation? What is better for yourself and other sentient beings do you think; selfish motivation or non-selfish motivation?
It is possible to undertake the precepts with a completely selfish motivation wishing to not cause harm to oneself, right? It is also possible to undertake the precepts with a completely selfless motivation wishing to not cause harm to any sentient beings, right? Of course, a mix of motivation is also possible and quite likely to my mind.
Of course, these precepts are focused on not causing harm; on non-action. What about actions that we should perform? It is also possible to examine the motivations for those as well. Are they actions performed with selfish motivation? Are they actions performed with non-selfish motivation? Mix?
Is there a supreme motivation for both action and non-action? Does there exist a motivation that is the zenith of motivations? Is it possible to train in the development of this motivation so as to undertake all action and non-action with this supreme motivation? If so, what is it?
Buddha said sometimes certain terms weren’t applicable to the situation.
Sometimes we have to be Skillful with our words in order to protect others, and there is no way the Buddha was against this, in fact He teaches such Compassion.
It is the doctrine of the Buddha, taking into account rebirth and kamma that lying is always bad.
And not worth it. If it’s more grey, he is unlikely to present the 5 precepts and say that stream winners or arahants at least cannot break them.
It’s likely because he saw that after taking into account rebirth and kamma that it’s never worth it, thus the utilitarian and kantian perspective on morality aligns in this case.
Don’t fall into the trap of impure motivation is worse than non action. Generosity even done for the sake of reward is better than not doing it.
Observing precepts for the sake of liberation is already the best motivation (you somehow want to say there’s selfishness in it), and it’s better to do it than to break precept just for a smaller gain which will be wiped out by impermanence anyway. Only Nibbāna is worth it.
Yes, I understand this point of view. It is similar to superdeterminism in physics don’t you think!
However, I do not know the initial conditions of the universe nor that there were any such initial conditions, but perhaps the Teacher did? I don’t think we should get bogged down in whether such superdeterminism is correct though unless we can know them.
Let’s go to the heart of the discussion:
One point of view is to read the suttas as the Teacher declaring such superdetermism.
Those who read it this way then take it on faith that immutable axioms - the precepts and vinnaya rules - lead through superdeterminism - to the best outcomes.
Thus the very difficult questions that you proposed in your thread about stream winners and chemical imbalances in the brain, are just taken on faith as not possible to arise.
Similarly for questions about arahants being placed in difficult conditions where they would not lie about Jews in the attic, etc; it is just taken on faith that these conditions could not arise due to the superdeterministic laws of the universe.
As long as one just follows the precepts, the motivation for following the precepts does not matter, because the superdeterministic laws of the universe are such that the non-action of lying always leads to the best outcomes.
That is one point of view. That last point I think is particularly problematic, don’t you think?
This is an alternative:
We don’t know that the Teacher intended any superdeterministic declaration nor that superdeterminism is true.
Therefore we should examine the motivation behind our actions and non-actions as the Teacher instructed.
Motivation conjoined with wisdom dictates the outcomes of our actions and non-actions.
There are different possible motivations ranging from selfish, to non-selfish, to mixed.
There are different possible levels of wisdom.
We should work to perfect our motivation and wisdom to ensure the best possible outcomes for our actions and non-actions for all sentient beings.
There is a supreme altruistic motivation and we should strive for it even if we can’t always meet it in the here and now.
There is a supreme altruistic wisdom and we should strive for it even if we can’t always meet it in the here and now.
This supreme altruistic motivation conjoined with supreme altruistic wisdom is the bodhi mind.
I think the latter presentation is more inline with the EBT and is the more skillful set of views for the eradication of desire, greed, and unsatisfactory existence, but I acknowledge I may be wrong
This is too much. Buddhism is incompatible with this. It’s that every single quantum results are predetermiend from the big bang. Too much.
It’s enough to see that A always causes B. Suffering results from breaking precepts.
There’s a story in the commentaries of an arahant who got beaten to death by a lay disciple in the lay disciple’a home that he goes for alms everyday. Why? Because he wanted to protect the parrot who swallowed the gem which was the property of the king. The lay disciple misunderstood that the monk stole the gem since he was away for a moment and when he came back, the gem was gone, and the monk and parrot was there.
When he asked the arahant monk where is the gem, the monk didn’t want to answer. And got beaten to almost death. The bird got in the way and got beaten to death too. Then the arahant asked if the bird is dead. The lay person asked what does it have to do with you? The bird was indeed dead. Then the arahant revealed that the bird swallowed the gem. And the lay person was full of remorse. The arahant protected the bird with his own life, too bad he died from the injury.
These two are not opposites as “wishing to not cause harm to any sentient beings” includes “wishing to not cause harm to oneself” - we’re all in it together. It’s nice to help and encourage the process of enlightenment (which is ultimately the only safety from harm) rather than worrying about where it will take root and grow.
Great. So we agree that faith in superdeterminism should not guide our actions, but do we agree that the motivation for undertaking precepts and thus the motivation for non-actions matter? Does the motivation for not lying matter?
It is true that oneself is included in the any, but do you acknowledge that there is quite a big difference between motivation focused on oneself versus motivation focused on the any with equanimity where no individual (including oneself) is placed above another?
When the motivation is focused on oneself it is a selfish motivation. When the motivation is focused on the any with equanimity where no individual (including oneself) is placed above another it is a non-selfish motivation. Agreed?
Are we though? If you are in a burning building with others and are terrified at the prospect of burning to the point that you don’t even think of helping others escape, that is quite different from thinking of others and yourself with equanimity where no individual’s needs are placed above any other, and then with wisdom and motivation acting to save as many as possible from the burning building isn’t it?
You have a bad guy who hates Buddhists. He says, “are you Buddhist?”
Sometimes we have to practice in secret. It gets that bad. There are some places where Buddhists get abused just for being Buddhist. Though there are those who choose to openly practice even in such places, and those who choose to be so open are extremely Loving people, I have seen it get extremely difficult for them. The main reason many of them do it is to show the abuse, and indirectly teach through a type of martyrdom to inexperienced Buddhists to hide their faith, or else they would be abused like them. It’s difficult, Samsara is cruel. These are very serious situations, so we have to be very careful.
Then there are some Monk Rules that have to do with withholding certain information. So not everything in such a case is applicable to lying. And circumstances can dictate that we can’t always even choose our own words.
Motivated by greed, hatred, delusion is unskillful and vice versa.
But don’t buy into the mahayana notion that aiming for enlightenment is selfish. Observing precepts well is part of the journey to enlightenment. And observing the precepts for enlightenment is the highest motivation already.
Aiming for enlightenment for yourself isn’t selfish?
Same question for you as for Stu:
If you are in a burning building with others and are terrified at the prospect of burning to the point that you don’t even think of helping others escape and rushing for the exit, that is quite different from thinking of others and yourself with equanimity where no individual’s needs are placed above any other, and then with wisdom and motivation acting to save as many as possible from the burning building isn’t it?
Which one is the better motivation/action do you think that leads to the least suffering? If the exit to the proverbial building is guarded by ‘no selfish desires allowed out’ even more so right?
Aiming for Enlightenment is the highest altruistic motivation, and it includes the Metta towards all beings. Even in Theravada, who would withhold the Dhamma from others in a prospect to walk a lonely path? There may be some, but these are people generally who have little chance to preach the Dhamma anyway, like Pratyekabuddhas who arise in an eon without a World-Honored One.
Aiming for Enlightenment for whom though? Is it for personal escape from the burning building? Escape from the burning building can’t be posited without declaring who we’re wishing to escape.
Sure. We should definitely be attempting to make our motivation your second option: “wishing to not cause harm to any sentient beings”
Yeah. We’re all suffering. We all wish to be free from suffering. We’re all subject to greed, hated and delusion. We all don’t really know how to get to the far shore.
There’s a training process that we need to undergo to be tamed so our motivation is:
That’s kinda what I was born for. I like MN34 I always identified with that young calf, hoping one day that I can do the same for others
As a Buddha, one can liberate all beings. In the Mahayana, Bodhisattvas Vow to do this. In Theravada, personal Enlightenment is understood as a step towards relieving suffering and such an eventual Higher Achievement by the Mahayana. All in due time. One does not have to be embodied to be a Buddha, and there is the Nirmanakaya, the Emanation Body in Mahayana. For those who can accept it, Mahayana and Theravada can work together for the purpose of continual progress. And there’s progress to be made in Higher Realms, and I personally do not believe Nibbana to be without varieties, in the Transcendental sense.
Hmm. I think it is fair to say that a Buddha has succeeded in perfecting the supreme altruistic wish to do just that, but I can’t say that a Buddha necessarily has the means to accomplish the goal, sentient beings being quite stubborn in their ignorance and all
People are liberated by their own merit, Buddhas only are a support. With or without buddhas or their involvement, dhamma is there, for anyone to investigate and realise for themselves.
To answer your Mahayana dilemma with Diamond Sutra: There is no Buddha, there is no teaching, there are no beings saved. Only the emptiness of kamma. Nothing can stop someone who intents on awakening, not even the Buddha can help someone who wants to keep cycling in samsara - hence Buddhas are superfluous.
