The purpose of sila and cultivating the heart in a relational context

The Watercooler
1

I believe ethics is relational. The reason why you act in specific ways towards other beings/people is because you genuinely care about them. I think practically this means you have to get some joy from their existence and your relationship to them.

I’ve heard it taught that the purpose of sila is for your own peace of mind and to further your progress towards enlightenment.

I think both are true. It’s also clear that the right thing to do for your peace of mind is not always the easiest or most comfortable thing to do.

In my view, this leads to the conclusion that the first task of ethics is in cultivating goodwill towards all beings/people. If you truly care about other humans and creatures, you will treat them well.

Then, the second task of ethics is to figure out the implications of our actions, as well as sort through the inevitable conflicts of interests of caring for so many relationships, so that our outcomes align with our intentions.

Like with any abstraction, I think a deontological approach can really only paint in the broadest of strokes, e.g. the five precepts.

The Buddha originally had no rules. He laid down rules as monks did things that made people upset or harmed other beings.

But those more specific, less foundational rules were set in the context of certain relationships, vis a vis ancient Indian political society, competing religious organizations, certain technological restraints, a different understanding of science and the universe, etc. – in a different web of relationships.

So, then, as a thought experiment, what training rules might the Buddha lay down today, given our current cultural/technological/political/social context, in our present day web of relationships?

Or, is it better off to have fewer rules, and focus on cultivating the heart? Do rules distract from relationships? Or at the level of specific relationships, do we find rules paint with too broad a brush?

Or both/neither?

1 Like
2

The precepts describe what needs to be avoided if the mind is going to have any chance of being tamed. Seems to me that the Buddha had no rules at first because the earliest disciples didn’t need that degree of guidance. They were already well-developed in virtue and restraint.

3

I think it is worth differentiating between monastic vinaya and 5 or 8 precepts.

I can’t say when the 5 precepts was first taught by the Buddha, but I feel like it was there quite early on. The monastic vinaya, on the other hand, emerged as it was needed.

With regards to the 5 precepts; the problems which they address are the same today as they were in the time of the Buddha. Personal and interpersonal safety and understanding that our actions have consequences (Right View) comes first. When we understand this then compassion (Right Intention) arises. Obviously they both feedback on each other in what the Buddha called (hiri and ottappa).

4 Likes
4

I have been a Buddhist since Brian Ferry left Roxy Music and this is the first time I’ve run into these words…

hiri
fem. sense of shame; modesty; conscience; sense of right and wrong; scruples; (comm) originating from inside [√hir + i] :heavy_check_mark:

ottappa
nt. regret; shame in wrongdoing; respect for others; (comm) originating from outside [ud + √tapp + *a] :heavy_check_mark:

Feel your bad —> regret it.

3 Likes
5

:smile:
I was so close to opening a new thread on this board called “Whatever happened to ottappa and hiri?” I think they are completely underrated. But there are threads if you use the search function. I don’t recall which teacher/teachings put them in the front seat but they are cornerstone’s of one’s practice in the sila department.

1 Like
6

An Abidhammaka (is that the term?) would probably say that the Sila are dictated by the list of unwholesome Kammic actions. Interesting that none of you seem to make this connection. Do you all believe in Kamma?

But I think that the 5 Sila can also be seen as an ethical compromise for not adding to the Dhukkha that you are trying to escape by making Nibbana your primary goal (and thereby neglecting other worldly duties).

From a skeptical point of view, they also seem to make sense as a basic “no-brainer” set of ethics while a definitive universal ethics is not attainable, aiming for the “four consolations” of Kalamasutta.

7

I have always heard Abhidhammika.

1 Like