"Sir, what is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?”
“Ānanda, having no regrets is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics.”
"But what is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets?”
“Joy is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets.”
Does joy here actually mean sympathetic joy?
When I understand him to mean just joy, then it seems the logic goes: be ethical → feel you’ve been a good boy. Or maybe, be ethical → get spiritual brownie points.
But this is a contradiction.
Ethical behavior is defined primarily by intention – intention to obtain some benefit for another.
If the intention is for self benefit, then the behavior is still selfish, and not truly ethical.
So, if the Buddha here truly means ethical behavior, then he must mean sympathetic joy as the purpose of ethical behavior, where sympathetic joy means the joy of seeing benefit brought to someone else, thinking not of your own reward.
Have I got my definitions all right? Does the Pali agree with this interpretation?
In the sutta you listed - ethical behaviour is connected to other purposes and benefits. If you act ethically, you won’t feel bad about what you did - and this is a reason to rejoice. There will be no thoughts like “What have I done? Why did I do this? What’s wrong with me? What will they think of me?” which usually lead to the mind being agitated. You can keep calm. You can stay mindful. And with samadhi established - you can reach for even better things!
AN 10.1 to me seems to be clearly pointing to the stages of development of samādhi, the 8th factor in the NF8P. The sutta proceeds from joy to rapture, to tranquility, bliss, immersion: these are all mentioned in the standard descriptions of the four jhānas. And also, not having regrets is a desideratum for meditation practice, because having regrets gives rise to restlessness and worry, one of the five hindrances.
It’s not about brownie points, and it’s not entirely selfish either. You might want to read AN 10.1 alongside SN 47.19, which talks about how the best way for us to take good care of one another is by first looking to our own development, taking good care of ourselves. Taking up and following the path is one of the best things I can do for the people who have to interact with me.
Muditā, rejoicing, is important: it’s one of the brahmaviharas along with mettā, karuṇā, upekkhā. But it’s not the main motivation for ethical practice, I don’t think. Ethical practice encompasses and points to a lot more than just sympathetic joy, and your own joy is an important part of following the path and not to be slighted.
In this context the word for ‘joy’ is ‘pāmojja’
[pa + √mud + *a + *ya] where the √mud is the same as mudita which is what is sometimes translated as ‘sympathetic joy’ but also as gladness or rejoicing.
The reason one rejoices when one does good is that it both feels good and creates good. The creation of good is the karma. When you know you are heading in the correct spiritual direction then it is a cause for delight. The Buddha asked us to reflect and rejoice in our own goodness. Having a healthy sense of self is the result of living a wholesome life.
Spiritual brownie points are not dished out by a god or someone else to us. We dish out our own brownie points/merit (puñña). We are the owner of our actions … and inherit their results.
It is related, per the previous answer by @Pasanna. Ethics means you are safeguarding the integrity & other good qualities of others; therefore the joy of ethnics must also include a sympathetic joy. However, it also contains a personal joy because in not harming others you also not harming yourself.
I doubt the Pali contains this concept or interpretation. My impression is the word ‘ethics’ or ‘sila’ in the Pali does not refer to internal mental states. Ethics only refers to speech & bodily actions. MN 44 says right speech, right action and right livelihood: these things are included in the spectrum of ethics.
A kammic aspect of ethics in the Pali is benefiting both oneself & others, as repeated in MN 61 and many other suttas such as MN 19 or SN 47.19. Dhp 166 prioritises not harming oneself before not harming others.
If I do a good deed, do I rejoice because I helped someone, or because I helped myself, or both?
If I view good deeds towards others as means to my own spiritual end, then I am still holding some self view and conceit.
If I view others as ends and my good deeds as spiritual means, then I have more fully let go of self view and conceit.
If I let the suffering of others be my motivation for ethical actions, and therefore my reason for rejoicing when I do good by others, then I don’t see how that could lead me wrong.
But I could see how being motivated by my own karmic reward could be an issue.
I think it is important, as thistle suggests, to read this sutta as a whole.
It’s the lack of remorse one feels after doing good deeds and refraining from bad deeds that lifts the heart and allows deep meditation to arise. That deep meditation then leads to enlightenment. From a Buddhist perspective enlightenment is the opposite of selfishness; ‘your’ enlightenment is of benefit to all sentiment beings.
Now you may think that you are doing something wrong if you do good things and refrain from bad things when the motivation is for your own benefit rather than the benefit of others. In this case it is likely to lead to remorse and deeper states of meditation are unlikely to arise in that condition. But the Buddha is maybe suggesting here that if you do good things and refrain from bad things (however you manage that), in the long run it will support the arising of something that is of benefit to all.
Sīla doesn’t necessarily mean that (alone). For example, restraining from six sense is also part of Sīla.
Sīla is done for the sake of your own liberation, which is the best thing you can achieve that would benefit others anyway. Perhaps such a perspective would be useful.
That’s the gist of Buddhist ethics (not sīla) - you’re concerned with doing what’s best for you, and what’s truly best for you is what’s best for everyone.
An example of Buddhist sīla in DHP 166:
Never neglect what is good for yourself
for the sake of another, however great.
Knowing well what is good for yourself,
be intent upon your true goal.
This is why I don’t think ethics is a very good translation for it without an asterix. It certainly isn’t ethics in the sense that Kant would explain with his deontology. “Conduct”, “behaviour”, “custom” etc. could perhaps convey the meaning better for you.
If you have done good you can choose to rejoice or not choose to rejoice but both are still’ I did this thing therefor I will or will not rejoice’.
If you do something good you are ‘creating good’ (lit. kusala kamma). However, if you are doing something with greed, hate, delusion, irrational application of mind or a wrongly directed mind then that is the cause for performing bad deeds. See AN10.47
