SuttaCentral
Ok, so you believe these evil beings are convinced they are really involved in good:
While also claiming that the following heavenly beings have wrong view??? 
While it is right view that even brought them to a heaven in the first place.
But you still see this as wrong view.
So how do you even know that things are impermanent in higher planes of existence?
Only because of Faith in The Buddha (hardly from your own experience).
I’m trying to decide if that response is an intentional ignorance of the obvious, gentle intent of the question.
What do you think Dabba?
I think each particular deva has to be judged separately, but you can say safely that these devas who are puthujjanas have by the very fact of being puthujjanas a wrong view. I think what you are talking about is mundane right view, and of course you’re right, without such view these devas weren’t be devas.
Of course Sakka ruler of gods would not come under such judgement since he was ariya. As well other devas like him.
And now, listening to music is relatively harmles sensual enjoyment listening to Beethoven also is sensuality, but when you have said ‘sex’ you have said all. A man who can give up sex can give up Beethoven. (NV) The point is these devas enjoy also sex. The difference is that Sakka sees his involvement in sex as thing which ultimately has to be given up, but devas who has no connection with Dhamma may see sensuality as innocent activity, “there is no harm in sensual pleasures” and such view is a wrong view.
Please stop thinking like that Dhabba. There are not evil beings, only ignorant ones. All unwholsomeness is rooted in ignorance, said the Buddha. I gave the sutta references.
I believe that, in general, good will leads to heavenly rebirth. Viewing others with loving eyes, caring for their wellbeing. But this element of goodheartness is not the same as pureheartedness. Often people who care for others welbeing are not free from doctrines of self and see in themselves and others a happy or sad self. Goodheartness is not perse connected to dispassion, purity, wisdom. Pure heartedness is. Pure heartedness refers the nature of mind and is for free. It is birthright of every living being, even of Mara. Pure heartedness never expacts something in return. It does not see morality as an investment. I believe, somewhere, deep insight, we all know that life is meant this way, and is not meant to be lived like a trademan.
That is true. But any existence is a construction, right? And all constructions are liable to des-integrate.
This is the idea behind bhava. Bhava refers to how mind has grasped and constructed a certain existence or reality for herself. I see asankhata as the unconstructed.
Yes, that is what i meant.
So It Was Said 39
The Book of the Twos
Chapter TwoTeaching
1.1This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.
2.1“Mendicants, the Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha has two approaches to teaching Dhamma. 2.2What two? 2.3‘See evil as evil’—2.4this is the first approach to teaching Dhamma. 2.5‘Having seen evil as evil, be disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed from it’—2.6this is the second approach to teaching Dhamma. 2.7The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha has these two approaches to teaching Dhamma.”
2.8The Buddha spoke this matter. 2.9On this it is said:
3.1“See the two approaches for 3.2explaining the Dhamma 3.3used by the Realized One, the Buddha, 3.4compassionate for all beings:
4.1see that that is evil, 4.2and be dispassionate towards it. 4.3Then, with a mind free of desire, 4.4you will make an end of suffering.”
5.1This too is a matter that was spoken by the Blessed One: that is what I heard.
The Buddha has a lot to say about evil, with just 345 results in the Suttas.
Regarding “there is no harm in sensual pleasures” I never actually said that at all. Given the context of all the various topics discussed which included such things as evil and ethics I was trying to make a point and I also added:
‘Greed, reverends, is mildly blameworthy, but slow to fade away.
So obviously I was trying to make point given the context and never said ’no harm” but rather that those things are pretty much harmless (in that very context, since the beings in question would never kill, lie and steal) just to experience these things. But if that was the case, that would truly be harmful & problematic.
Something evil people do without a doubt - kill, steal and lie just to have this or that sensual pleasure…
—————————
A putthujjana has not seen the Noble ones and does not know about what The Buddha taught.
A putthujjana has access to all planes of existence:
Kama Loka, Rupa Loka & Arupa Loka
It is not like a putthujjana is a fool.
I’m not saying one has to be religious to end up in heaven but the question is of course how and why these beings would see sex and sensuality as an ”innocent activity” when they most likely come from a spiritual/religious background?
Found In all other religions:
There is also restraint when it comes to sensuality from eating food to dressing modestly in other religions/sects/spiritual paths - and it is not like there is overindulgence in sexual activity either.
But what did I mean with this entire thread?
I’ve learned that while the brahma gods are ”just a bunch of deluded, arrogant, ”full of ego” narcissists” - Mara and his gang on the other hand are not really evil at all and even superior…
I’d love to see these very strange/bizarre points being made in the thread but instead brought up at some interreligious/interfaith dialogue meeting! 
You could all end the discussion with: ”meh, it doesn’t matter, you’re a putthujjana so you can never truly understand us buddhists.”
Problem solved! 
Do you really believe that wise have as good self and evil people have an evil self?
It seems you believe I somehow support Sujato’s view of narcistic full of ego Baka Brahma. I have never thought any moment this way about Brahma and his company.
You are really good in creating drama 
Attakārī Sutta: The Self-Doer
AN.6.38
Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus:
“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”[1]
“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]
“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] … is there an element of effort [7] … is there an element of steadfastness [8] … is there an element of persistence [9] … is there an element of endeavoring?” [10]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”
“Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: ‘Those who have eyes see forms!’ Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge.”
The Bhagavad-Gita teaches that the Soul is the non-doer of material activities, that it has nothing to do with this material world, and that it is simply caught up in the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance. However it also teaches that the individual cannot stop doing something, even for a moment, so the Soul is considered not the full monty of the individual.
In Buddhism we learn that the Aggregates that make up a person are meant to be cessated, that they contain no eternal Soul or self, but these are transient and temporary fragments of an illusory and Empty being, a no-being, non-self. Whatever you think your Soul is now, will be Transcended one day, so Buddhism doesn’t grasp onto the notion of a Soul.
The mind, which is also Empty in the basis for the Skandhas, can be evil for some people, in fact, it can be fully evil. However, in Buddhism this is not the philosophical basis for an evil Soul or self. Buddhism doesn’t believe in such things. And anyone can change and become a Buddha!
So, you see a person stealing some money to enjoy some candy, and dhabba thinks…evil person that you are. And some time later, you see that same person help an old lady fallen on the street. With great care and love he helps that old lady…dhabba thinks…oh you good person…
then dhabba seeks in the sutta’s how he can reconcile all this. It that person now evil or good?
He asks Green for advice because he knows Green is wise…
Nope, I still stick to the suttas.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell?
There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment?
There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable.
With all respect Green,
There is no way you can come up with a better view regarding anything that pertains to existence and experiences, than what is already in the suttas.
Karma as a living experience is real enough for me, I’ve done debating with how it is. When it comes to defending divine beings, I’m all in, especially for the sacred feminine aspect, which in my understanding was the force that responded when Gotama touched the Earth and asked or begged her to be his witness against the evil forces of Mara.
So I easily bow to the above and below in deep gratitude and love.
I also follow the sutta’s…as always…
The sutta’s are very clear…i give you one but there are more:
“Mendicants, ignorance precedes the attainment of unskillful qualities, with lack of conscience and prudence following along. An ignoramus, sunk in ignorance, gives rise to wrong view. Wrong view gives rise to wrong thought. Wrong thought gives rise to wrong speech. Wrong speech gives rise to wrong action. Wrong action gives rise to wrong livelihood. Wrong livelihood gives rise to wrong effort. Wrong effort gives rise to wrong mindfulness. Wrong mindfulness gives rise to wrong immersion.
Please stop talking about evil beings that do wrong deeds. Ignorance precedes…See?
I also feel we can realise that all we see are mere snapshots in someones life. If someone judges me lowly because of something i did in my youth, such as fishing,- that i now consider cruel and have abandoned,- i feel he/she misjudges me. But if you see this, why would you even judge people and think low or high of them? Because people can also develop from relative good deeds to more and more immoral deeds. If you see this, what is all that judging really worth?
Well, i think the sutta’s are missing a psychologic perspective. For example, one can easily see that people with wounds, being abused, with trauma, emotional neglect etc. they can easily be judged as fools from buddhist perspective. But i think that obsession, passion, the wrong Path, imbalance, also ego conceit grows upon such wounds. I feel this is really lacking in the sutta’s. So many people have such issues. No word on neglect, abuse, trauma, while this is the experience of many people.
People try to find some balance, inner peace but wounds are not healed. Probably when you see someone with a huge ego, he/she has also deep emotional wounds.
We clearly do not see it the same way, regardless what you imagine ignorance to be the fact remains that choices are made intentionally.
Are you then also claiming that astute beings do good out of ignorance?
Choices are made by actual thinking and feeling beings.
An ignoramus, sunk in ignorance, gives rise to wrong view.
Great, but at the same time you claim that those who actually have mundane right view (like devas enjoying sense pleasures while also being ethical, astute and wise) actually have wrong view…
Calling things Good or Evil is not a ”judgement”, it is a reality.
“These are the three characteristics, signs, and manifestations of a fool. What three? A fool thinks poorly, speaks poorly, and acts poorly. If a fool didn’t think poorly, speak poorly, and act poorly, then how would the astute know of them, ‘This fellow is a fool, an untrue person’? But since a fool does think poorly, speak poorly, and act poorly, then the astute do know of them, ‘This fellow is a fool, an untrue person’.
So since you say you have no ignorance yourself,
how do you make a distinction between a fool and someone astute?
And honestly I don’t even feel like discussing this with you anymore since you made it clear that you see no good in all the the great people I mentioned from doctors/nurses to those giving to charity and so on…
And your reply to why you can’t see anything good in fellow human beings was this.
So if we take that answer of yours into consideration together with the following:
“Monks, a fool who is deprived of wisdom and good judgment, devoid of virtue, does not recognize a good person as a good person, or a bad person as a bad person. However, monks, a wise person who possesses wisdom and good judgment, endowed with virtue, recognizes a good person as a good person and a bad person as a bad person.”
I honestly don’t want to waste my time discussing any of this since we are not getting anywhere.
Volitional karmic formations (sankhara in PS) arise with avijja as condition. Also meritorious ones (SN12.51). In other words, if thoughts, speech, deeds are rooted in such kind of volition, are instigated by it, based upon it, they can be good and meritorious, but are not considered pure. They are NOT dispassionate but passionate. All such thoughts, speech and deeds that arise this way are not based upon dispassion.
That is what PS learns. Even the vinnana, third factor, is loaded with passion. Thoughts, speech and actions can be based upon dispassion, but not those that arise with avijja and sankhara as condition.
It might look strange but also deeds that are considered good, moral, meritorious are not based upon dispassion, but also contain an element of impurity. Often a belief in self. They are passionate deeds. Meritorious is not the same as Pure. Pure is connected to supramundane. Merit with Mundane.
The Dhamma is not like this: When there are meritorious karmic formations there cannot be avijja. There is always aviija when there are karmically loaded formations arising that give rise to judgement/thinking patterns/seeing things in a certain way, speech and actions. So also meritorious kammic formations.
It took me some time to see this. Maybe it is of use in this discussion?
I like Buddhism because it does not really see greed, hate and ignorance as evil or sin but as unwholesome roots. I feel that is a different perspective, that i like.
I know that the narrative of good versus evil, sin versus virtue is also used in the sutta’s, but i see that as Buddha’s way to align with conventions.
Never said i am not ignorant Dhabba
Never said so. It is no issue for me to think about people as good en bad. If i do, i correct myself for doing so. My experience is that it is good not to be naive and really see what is unwholesome and not, skillful and not, not conducive etc. But it is not conducive to see some evil self in another person or a good self. It is not true. Such an instigator-self does not exist. Bad deeds arise with avijja as condition and not an evil self.
Sometimes the sutta’s are just expressing and aligning with worldly conventions, such as thinking about people as bad and good. I understand why such is being said although it is not meritorious at all to take this literally.
Thank you @Green for mentioning SN 12.51, now we can finally make some progress in the discussion. 
SN 12.51:
If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. If they make a bad choice, their consciousness enters a bad realm. If they make an imperturbable choice, their consciousness enters an imperturbable realm.
And now please read everything in this long post carefully and ponder on it, no need for a quick reply. 
And that self is the The Self-Doer from the Attakārī Sutta:
AN 6.38 that I posted earlier.
So please study AN 6.38 closely.
And now on to the other stuff:
First, here is your sutta quote again:
“Mendicants, ignorance precedes the attainment of unskillful qualities, with lack of conscience and prudence following along. An ignoramus, sunk in ignorance, gives rise to wrong view. Wrong view gives rise to wrong thought. Wrong thought gives rise to wrong speech. Wrong speech gives rise to wrong action. Wrong action gives rise to wrong livelihood. Wrong livelihood gives rise to wrong effort. Wrong effort gives rise to wrong mindfulness. Wrong mindfulness gives rise to wrong immersion.
And now after you read that, take this sutta into consideration:
Making a Wish
“Mendicants, an ethical person, who has fulfilled ethical conduct, need not make a wish: ‘May I have no regrets!’ It’s only natural that an ethical person has no regrets.
When you have no regrets you need not make a wish: ‘May I feel joy!’ It’s only natural that joy springs up when you have no regrets.
When you feel joy you need not make a wish: ‘May I experience rapture!’ It’s only natural that rapture arises when you’re joyful.
When your mind is full of rapture you need not make a wish: ‘May my body become tranquil!’ It’s only natural that your body becomes tranquil when your mind is full of rapture.
When your body is tranquil you need not make a wish: ‘May I feel bliss!’ It’s only natural to feel bliss when your body is tranquil.
When you feel bliss you need not make a wish: ‘May my mind be immersed in samādhi!’ It’s only natural for the mind to become immersed in samādhi when you feel bliss.
When your mind is immersed in samādhi you need not make a wish: ‘May I truly know and see!’ It’s only natural to truly know and see when your mind is immersed in samādhi.
When you truly know and see you need not make a wish: ‘May I grow disillusioned!’ It’s only natural to grow disillusioned when you truly know and see.
When you’re disillusioned you need not make a wish: ‘May I become dispassionate!’
It’s only natural to grow dispassionate when you’re disillusioned.
When you’re dispassionate you need not make a wish: ‘May I realize the knowledge and vision of freedom!’ It’s only natural to realize the knowledge and vision of freedom when you’re dispassionate.
And so, mendicants, the knowledge and vision of freedom is the purpose and benefit of dispassion. Dispassion is the purpose and benefit of disillusionment. Disillusionment is the purpose and benefit of truly knowing and seeing.
Truly knowing and seeing is the purpose and benefit of immersion. Immersion is the purpose and benefit of bliss. Bliss is the purpose and benefit of tranquility. Tranquility is the purpose and benefit of rapture.
Rapture is the purpose and benefit of joy. Joy is the purpose and benefit of not having regrets.
Not having regrets is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics.
And so, mendicants, good qualities flow on and fill up from one to the other, for going from the near shore to the far shore.”
It ought to be crystal clear now from this sutta that skillful ethics has a connection to the supramundane since it leads to ”immersed in samādhi” and so on.
While the sutta you quoted starts with:
”ignorance precedes the attainment of unskillful qualities, with lack of conscience and prudence following along.
And ends with:
Wrong mindfulness gives rise to wrong immersion.
And to further emphasize my point:
versus
If someone lacks conscience, does such a person have regrets?
Of course not, the whole thing with those that lack conscience is that they can pretty much do anything to anyone no matter the consequences, without any regrets.
So from that perspective both the evil fool and also the good wise person ”have no regrets” yet there is a very clear distinction made between them.
And as the AN 11.2 sutta also mentions:
One can only truly becomes dispassionate when the mind is immersed in samādhi, and one can only have the mind is immersed in samādhi thanks to ethics.
So it really doesn’t matter the slightest when you made the following distinction:
Even if ethical deeds are ”passionate” you can ONLY become dispassionate thanks to these ”passionate” ethical deeds in the first place, since they lead to the mind immersed in samādhi, which then leads to dispassion and beyond.
”Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there is meaning in giving, etc. You can expect that they will reject bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind.
Why is that?
Because those ascetics and brahmins see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.”
But with one’s own experiences in life, taking the time to listen to wise people and of course such a basic human thing as having a conscience one gradually dismantles ignorance, right?
That is why FAITH is so important.
Suffering can lead one to faith, but taking this path instead:
”ignorance precedes the attainment of unskillful qualities, with lack of conscience and prudence following along.”, where one ”passionately” disregard the well-being of others, is only concerned with one self and lack of conscience and so on which leads to lying, harming and so on, all this still a deliberate choice!
(AN 6.38)
If someone deliberately refuses to listen to wise people, and even mock them when they speak of virtue, charity & an heavenly afterlife, that person is indeed a fool who imagines they know better (MN 60 has more details on this).
"Monks, there are these seven obsessions. Which seven?
"(1) The obsession of sensual passion.
"(2) The obsession of resistance.
"(3) The obsession of views.
"(4) The obsession of uncertainty.
"(5) The obsession of conceit.
"(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.
"(7) The obsession of ignorance.
“These are the seven obsessions.”
Once again please remember, people have eons of experiences/lives that have formed how and why they think and feel like they do, eventhough they might not be aware of these past lives themselves.
The music (sensual passion) one listened to 10 years ago, one maybe does not listen to any more.
The views one had 10 years ago, one maybe does not have any more.
What one was ignorant about 10 lives ago, one now knows about, and so on and so on.
Ignorance is an obsession.
That is why ignorance is not ignorance as in some excuse as to why fools commit evil deeds and it is ignorance itself that somehow is the blame for all of this.
You simplify everything when making ignorance into an excuse for evil behaviour.
No, all choices and the resulting deeds in body, speech and mind are still deliberate and the self-doer (AN 6.38) of this, is 100% responsible:
Then King Yama says, ‘Mister, because you were negligent, you didn’t do good by way of body, speech, and mind. Well, they’ll definitely punish you to fit your negligence. That bad deed wasn’t done by your mother, father, brother, or sister. It wasn’t done by friends and colleagues, by relatives and kin, by ascetics and brahmins, or by the deities. That bad deed was done by YOU alone, and YOU alone will experience the result.’
So why does The Buddha specifically say in plenty of suttas that we should avoid certain people?
”you should recognize these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, the spender.”
“Not to fraternize with fools,
but to fraternize with the wise,
MN 129
Dhammpada (Chapter 5, The Fool):
”Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool.”
”Truly, an evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, like milk that does not turn sour all at once. But smoldering, it follows the fool like fire covered by ashes.”
”To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.”
—————————
Seriously, if someone is on the wrong path and all of a sudden decides to give up their bad behaviour and instead try their best to never commit any bad deeds,
are you then claiming this choice was also made out of ignorance?
You have to see all of this as spanning over countless of past lives and countless choices has been made during these(!).
Some choices led to good,
others choices led to bad -
either way one must have learned tons of lessons during the countless previous lives, and is hopefully a little bit wiser thanks to it. 
”Good qualities flow on and fill up from one to the other, for going from the near shore to the far shore.”
I am not gonna comment on all. I have no doubts on these subjects. There is goodheartedness in Dhamma. Intentions, plans, tendencies, speech, deeds that are meritorious. For example, care of nurses and doctors for patients. This does not at all mean that this is connected to dispassion, purity of heart, wisdom.
Do those nurses and doctors understand that there is no self inside that is suffering? No ego? Do they see things as they really are? Do they understand mind is empty? Do they even know the Path?
This is not to judge, ofcourse, but i have for my self understood there is difference between goodheartedness and the pure heartedness of the nobles. Goodheartedness can even be foolish.
A good heart wants to help but that does not mean that its actions are really skillful.
I am not gonna debate this. I can only ask you if you might be willing to consider this.
Ofcourse i can all support this with sutta’s, but i like to speak with you from person to person what we have learned from the sutta’s and life.
I believe it is a huge mistake to think about the volitional activity that instigates our lines of thinking, speech and actions as deliberate. It is absolute not like that. If you follow the breath is it your deliberate choice to become involved and enagaged in conceiving? No. That is not a choice.
The mind is untamed. It does what it used to do. That people deliberately do evil, please reconsider
If you see a animal hunt another do you blame this animal, or do you think; that animal is conditioned like this? Humans are the same. They might have more freedom and potential, and able to learn, but humans are also conditioned beings. It is not oke to attribute so much freedom to human beings, nor yourself. Realistic about this. Also the freedom of humans is limited.
Truly being dispassionate does not rely on samadhi but on purification of mind. It takes no effort to be dispassionate for a pure heart. If it takes, one is still a learner. Like me 
There is bright kamma with bright results. This is merit. There is dark kamma with dark result. This is demerit. There is mixed kamma with mixed result. All kamma is a bond. Also merit is a bond with the world. All kamma is based upon avijja. Also merit. Then there is kamma that makes an end to all kamma. This is the Path connected to dispassion, supramundane, ofcourse not as some future vision, but being dispassionate here and now. It is based upon purity. Supramundane is not connected to kamma. The Path of purity is no Path of kamma. But the Mundane Path of Merit is.
Must develop in life. It ripens gradually and is not depend on culture. Maybe in some culture it is seen as merit to offers animals, but this has nothing to do with conscience. Conscience is not something cultural. It ripens from wisdom, seeing things as they really are.
Did any beings in all the planes of existence see any of this prior to The Buddha showing up?
You completely disregard the fact that humans can feel both fear and shame and that this prevents them from commiting evil deeds in the first place.
Or feel guilt (regrets) if they have commited those evil deeds and never want to again.
AN 4.121 - “Mendicants, there are these four fears. What four? The fears of guilt, shame, punishment, and going to a bad place.
AN 10.76
Mendicants, someone who lacks conscience and prudence is negligent. When you’re negligent you can’t give up disregard, being hard to admonish, and having bad friends. When you’ve got bad friends you can’t give up faithlessness, uncharitableness, and laziness. When you’re lazy you can’t give up restlessness, lack of restraint, and unethical conduct.
When you’re unethical you can’t give up not wanting to see the noble ones, not wanting to hear the teaching of the noble ones, and a fault-finding mind. When you’ve got a fault-finding mind you can’t give up unmindfulness, lack of situational awareness, and a scattered mind.
But the following sutta clearly says the opposite to
”Truly being dispassionate does not rely on samadhi”.
That is why I posted it earlier in hope that you would actually read it:
While ”purification of mind” is being ethical:
Yes and we humans and others in Kama Loka like the devas have this mix of both pleasant and unpleasant contacts and due to this both wholesome and unwholesome actions in body, speech and mind.
We decide ourselves how we should react to all the various situations we might end up in.
As an example:
I hope not.
I hope not.
——————————
Elder women, over 80 years old and completely defenseless are robbed in broad daylight by complete fools with no regrets.
Is this is a pleasant contact for elder innocent women? Of course not!
There is suffering (mental & physical trauma), anger/sadness/hopelessness for what happened, fear of ever going outside, loss and a bunch of other things due to this.
While these robbers get to enjoy whatever trivial worldy things it is they enjoy, all from deliberately robbing innocent defenseless people - they get pleasant contacts due to robbing and might decide to continue doing this for the rest of their lives with no remorse whatsoever.
————————
We are constantly being told by wise people, who know and see that there is indeed an afterlife,
not seek revenge when being mistreated and feeling anger/sadness/hopelessness and suffering due to this.
When the body breaks up of a robber he realises he didn’t actually die and is still aware.
He looks around and see these majestic beings of light in various colours, he thinks it is really AMAZING! 
Unfortunately these incredible beings happen to be yamadūta devas…