Ethical Conduct For Enlightenment?

[Guest]

Many of our descriptions of enlightenment here seem to be centered around denying the existence of the self.

I'm curious then, as to why then so much emphasis was placed upon ethical conduct (right speech, right action, right livelihood etc) in Buddhism, and why our discussions of achieving enlightenment seem to skip this discussion altogether.

For example, is it ok to eat meat when I am trying to get enlightened?

[kyleplarson]

hello there! 

i understand your question. i don't think enlightenment is exactly the realization that there is no self. i believe that is just one of the biggest insights enlightenment has to offer. there are many other things people think are real that aren't like money just to name one. i would also throw out that you can eat meat and it won't help or hinder you in your spiritual journey. one of my favorite enlightened masters said it is not what goes in you that defiles you, rather it is what comes out of you. guilt is a big big stumbling block when trying to realize your true nature. hope this helped!

[Guivs]

hello

Here is my opinion. I think that to get the necessary insights in order to attain enlightenment, you need to have a mind that is "somewhat stable" in the first place, so that you can focus more easily. Hence, having an ethical conduct helps you in being less prone to your mind pulling you all over the place. For example, let us say that you tell a lot of big lies to people. Then, it will be much harder for you to attain deeper stages in your mediation and wisdom as those lies might worry you ( afraid of being discovered and so on).

I would say a solid ethical conduct is a great foundation for optimizing meditation and enlightenment work.

hope that helps:)

[Guest]

I don't eat meat. I stopped killing insects, unless they bother me a lot. I am kind, compassionate and helpful. These didn't help me to enlighten but they helped me to be good for my environment and lower my bad karma. In conclusion, every good thing helps but it depends on you.

[Nemo]

Immorality of various kinds seems to be mainly concerned with obtaining enhanced survival for the ego.

[Guest]

I think some of you seem to be confused about the ego's role in ethical conduct. I will first state that I am not enlightened. However it is apparent to me that all immoral conduct is the work of the ego. One of the facets of "ego" is asking the question "what is my worth compared to that of others around me", whereas losing the ego is not even asking that question at all.

 

So, many ask: Why not eat meat? Sustenance is a necessity for the body to live, we can all agree. However, at what point do I decide that this sustenance is causing *unnecessary* harm?

First off, we do not need to eat animals for the body to live. Vegans and vegetarians have shown us this is a possibility. It is not a NECESSITY considering the amount of access to food that we have that isn't meat.

We live in societies where we are given anything we want, and at ease. However, every action has a consequence (yes not every consequence can be foreseen, however when talking about eating meat, the consequences are almost directly connected to you buy meat).  What any animal slaughter video and you will see the consequence. Whether or not you intended the suffering in the first place is irrelevant, because you were ignorant of the suffering once you started eating meat. However, once you have seen and *understood* the unnecessary suffering which is being brought upon these animals in order to bring that food to your plate, the argument left of WHY you continue to do so, has to be that animals do not matter as much as humans do, and therefore meaning that it is permissible to eat meat. "Humans have more worth than a chicken. Therefore we can use it as we wish." I hope you see the faultiness of this argument. Who says humans have more worth? What is our criteria? And it certainly doesn't enable us to use animals for whatever we want, even if we do perceive humans as having more worth.

Eating meat because humans view ourselves as having greater value than other beings completely goes against losing the ego, provided that we know where our meat is coming from and how much suffering it is causing. It is a human societal-based belief that we have been brought up with, and just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it "right". 

(Of course, you could just deny that anything really exists and therefore doesn't matter, but I think this is a misunderstanding of what enlightenment is. As Pinocchio says "Children need boundaries, but to become an adult you'll need room to outgrow those boundaries." These are the boundaries that have been set by Buddhism, because they are rooted in the misunderstanding perpetuated by human culture.)

 

You could also make the argument "well, who says that animals are worth more than plants?" To that person, I would say that you are rejecting the world we live in. Of course we cannot know that animals are worth more, or not, but distancing yourself from the ego, is not asking that "who is worth more" question at all. I am, however able to see that animals suffer more than plants. And this is what matters in my argument. Not the whole "who is worth more than who", for it appears that this is all the work of the ego.

In other words, what I am saying is the same as that of Kant: all beings are ends in themselves. They are not merely a means.

In all appearances, it seems that non-ignorant causation of unnecessary suffering is against that which enlightenment points to, and I would seriously doubt anyone claiming to be enlightened if they still ate meat!!

Edited February 10, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Guest]

That's not what I'm saying at all. "Ethics", like you said is just a bunch of rules that the ego holds on to. But, losing the ego also means having love for all life, therefore this "ethical" behavior would just naturally arise.

[Guest]

The problem, is you think I'm holding on to ideas about it. I'm not using it as an ego thing, like you keep insisting. I'm not using it as a means to hold myself above others, or anything like that.  I'm saying that you can't truly being enlightened if you think it is ok to cause unnecessary suffering. Hell, I don't even know that. But your stubbornness in saying "no, it's fine for me to eat meat", is not relevant to me at all. It's relevant to you. 

I get exactly what you are saying, but you yourself are holding onto your own views about things, and about what I am saying.

It's like you've read a bunch of books on non-duality, and have cultivated non of the love of life or being.

I will watch the lectures later, but for now, this is what I am expressing.

Edited February 10, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Guest]

I said it was a facet of ego, Pinnochio..

I find it amusing that you think you know where I am coming from, when what I am expressing is merely the refutal of societal conditioning.

And you keep coming back at me with "This is your ego talking, all these are ideas which you are holding on to". Well, now I can't say anything if you use that argument, because to everything I say, you just say that that's "my ego" talking.. 

You want to completely deny that other beings suffer and call these concerns petty, then that is up to you. Again, I do not say this out of a sense of ego, but out of not being ignorant of what happens in THIS realm. It's not about me and my sense of justice at all.

Everything you wrote in your post is suggestive that you think I'm speaking from a different place than I am.

[jjer94]

19 hours ago, tryingforfreedom said:

Many of our descriptions of enlightenment here seem to be centered around denying the existence of the self.

I'm curious then, as to why then so much emphasis was placed upon ethical conduct (right speech, right action, right livelihood etc) in Buddhism, and why our discussions of achieving enlightenment seem to skip this discussion altogether.

For example, is it ok to eat meat when I am trying to get enlightened?

Good questions. 

My guess is that the Buddha thought ethical conduct could help you realize Truth. The issue with any set path to enlightenment such as the Eightfold Path is that your reasons for following the path are ego-based. It's like you expect to become the Buddha by wearing his robes. Very unlikely. Enlightenment is not an external change, but an internal realization in which external changes may be side effects.

In fact, following any path will make you stagnate, because what you're doing is following a set of rules. Enlightenment is destroying/seeing through the rulebooks altogether. Yes, that means destroying your ideas of morality. Morality is basically, "You should do _____, you shouldn't do ______." Post-enlightenment is amoral, because you do whatever you feel moved to do regardless of rules.

You may be wondering then, why don't most enlightened beings go on a killing spree and pillage everyone and everything if they don't have a moral code? The answer is: why would they? I mean, if the circumstances dictated that they murder someone, sure, they'll do it. But otherwise, what's the point? For some money to buy pointless stuff? For illusory vengeance? For recognition or status? Almost all of the reasons someone would commit a crime are ego-based. 

So...is it okay to eat meat? Of course it is! Pig out, my friend. One more belief dispelled is a victory in my book.

[Myke]

Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.  Once you awaken from the mind, concepts like good, bad, ethical, unethical, are merely judgements which the ego, or Myke, has applied to a situation in which it feels separate. There is literally no where for the conceptual to exist other than mind.  Once awakened, there is the realization that there are no beings separate from you and never were, that was all ego bull shit. Not only was the boundary separating you from the rest of reality not real, someone made it up, told you, and that's been your perspective since.   You realize that there is no such thing as death because you were never actually born.  

 

A HUGE misconception about enlightenment work is that the ego has anything to gain from it at all.  Yes there is peace, and yes there is pure openness...but the ego won't benefit from any of that.  Die before you die.  Die to the posture.  

[Guest]

Yes, but I am not making this argument from a point of "ethics the right thing to do", nor saying that "this is the right path". I am not making any judgements about it whatsoever. Ok, so now that is out of the way...

It was said earlier "You may be wondering then, why don't most enlightened beings go on a killing spree and pillage everyone and everything if they don't have a moral code? The answer is: why would they? I mean, if the circumstances dictated that they murder someone, sure, they'll do it. "

Yup exactly my point, don't you think. Why would one cause unnecessary suffering?

[jjer94]

Quote

Yup exactly my point, don't you think. Why would one cause unnecessary suffering?

Be careful here. An enlightened being sees committing most crimes as unnecessary not because they want to reduce unnecessary suffering. They see them as unnecessary because it just wouldn't cross their minds. If the circumstances arose where they had to mass-murder a bunch of people, and it was clearly indicated, a fully enlightened being would do it with no remorse, no guilt whatsoever. 

By the way you word your point, it's as if you're spinning my words into a belief to add to your worldview. The belief is: No one should cause unnecessary suffering. Then you can use that as a way to reinforce your belief that eating animals is somehow wrong. Remember Leo's video about the knowledge graph? Watch that if you haven't, because this is what you're doing.

I hate to break it to ya, but no belief is true. None. Don't take my word for it, though. Do your own inquiry into the matter. 

You don't have to do anything to become enlightened. The Truth already is, regardless of whether you've had sex with 1000 women, murdered a bunch of innocent children, have a racing mind, or hate somebody. What is commonly referred to as "enlightened behavior" is just an external side-effect of an internal realization.

Edited February 10, 2016 by jjer94

[Leo Gura]

Most people with regard to ethics and morality have it backwards, they put the cart before the horse.

If the boundary between self and other is eliminated (enlightenment) then what naturally springs up from that void is: universal compassion and expressions of unconditional love for all of reality. << This is where all the best and oldest ethical and moral precepts come from.

It's analogous to when Pythagoras discovers the Pythagorean theorem through direct investigation and then codifies it into a formula which is then applied mechanically by millions of school children to crunch numbers. A deep understand of the theorem from first-hand investigation is rare. Most people just crunch numbers blindly when it comes to ethics. They don't understand WHY it works or where it's sourced from, they just know the rules to follow. And ironically this turns them into little egotical devils, judging everything under the sun as good/evil.

Why does Buddhism teach ethics? Probably because most people won't get very far on the path and some rules are better than nothing. Probably because reducing hedonistic or narcissistic action helps keep moving along the path. Probably because of social and political reasons too. Probably because from the Buddha's position it's the natural way to act. Probably simply due to cultural conventions and even the Buddha's own dogmas. And probably because the Buddha could not foresee the evils and abuses that would come when people turned his rules into religious doctrines.

It's important to remember that the ancient sages like Jesus or The Buddha did not have the wisdom of history like we do today. If Jesus or Buddha saw the last 2000 years of human history and all the evils that have been done in the name of religion and morality, they would probably have re-thought how they taught their disciplines and what rules they laid out. My guess is, they just sort of assumed that if you give the people some nice rules to live by, that will be helpful and no wrong will come of it. But they couldn't foresee how societies and religions would rise to power and use these rules as weapons to wage war on the ego's behalf.

[Guest]

Regarding what Leo wrote, I agree that the rules ethics as penned down by Buddha and Jesus maybe should have been penned down, and that previous attempts in human history to turn it into a rulebook have been disastrous. The rulebook, was based on something though. I do not think it is a coincidence that beauty and loss of ego (and the resulting non-selfish behavior) are synonymous.

 

Regarding what the others wrote..

I understand the “enlightenment” which you are talking about. A destruction of world views, the only thing that is apparent in this realm is of the experience.

It’s almost as if we are arguing from different perspectives on what “enlightenment” is. Those like Pinnochio and jjer94 argue that no belief/worldview is true, and that this very thing is enlightenment. (I agree that we cannot know anything, and that we cannot have any world views.) My view on enlightenment is that of a “higher consciousness”. Although to even say that sounds like a belief...I will say it again…I do not think it is a coincidence that beauty and loss of ego (and the resulting non-selfish behavior) are synonymous.

In addition, if you have destroyed your world views, as I’m sure many on this forum have, we now enter into dangerous territory of solipsism and “nothing matters”. Once you assume that this realm doesn’t matter, you’ve lost. For this is just another world view.

Me saying “one shouldn’t cause unnecessary suffering” is not a world-view, it’s the words that arise out of love. Love of being and loss of ego. If you see what I’m saying. I’m not trying to control you, but it does masquerade as that.

Maybe we all create our own beauty…

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Guest]

I'd also like to add, since Pinnochio wants to mention it in that all-knowing tone of his/hers, that this isn't me projecting my fears onto other beings. But what being likes pain, and goes "hey that was nice!".

Edited February 10, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Guest]

The goal is to be thankful for your own suffering, not to completely reject it.

Others around us are reflections of us. If I don't like what you are saying, that is a reflection on my being. Similarly, if you are still maintaining that what I am saying is out of ego, or me projecting my own fears, that is a reflection on you, as I have already explained that it is not.
 

An enlightened being simply would not commit an act that is immoral because it wouldn't even cross their mind, not because of a code of ethics. It's not merely a state of not knowing, like a lot of people on this forum seem to think it is.

All beings are ends in themselves. Suffering is there for a reason, but to CAUSE suffering for no purpose goes against what suffering itself is trying to teach us.

Edited February 10, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Guest]

I'm done arguing with you .

All you do is impose your own version of reality, regurgitating books which you've read, and refuting what I am telling you by telling me that I am living in a fairy tale. Who is living in the fairy tale? The one who refuses to even acknowledge the truth which is being said, or the one who is avoiding the truth by refuting the reality which is being expressed?

I said the thing about a higher conciousness to make a point about us having different views on what enlightenment means.

What you think is a rational explanation of reality is actually a refutation of it, especially when you make statements like "you CAN know that others DON'T exist" (refering to a previous thread). I guarantee you, you are not as enlightened as you think.

Read what I wrote in the 3 posts before yours really carefully, and if there is no truth there at all, please ignore everything I said.

 

[Guest]

Spin it how you like man. I'm not asking for you to agree with me, merely to understand what is being written.

"You want people to either agree with you or get out of your sight." applies to you more actually. You refused to make a counter-point to what I was saying other than by saying that I live in a fairy tale. We can both say that and not get anywhere.

I do, however, want to add, that we all are at different stages of life of eating meat and not eating meat. TO an extent it is natural. The thought of not eating meat and its consequences may not even occur to the person at that point in time, or for a good while. It is the individual's path and nothing else. I will apply no judgement, but will say that I know no instance of a vegetarian going back to eating meat.

  In short, I do think that it is worthwhile giving a proper think about about the consequences of your actions in this world.

Edited February 10, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Guest]

J. Krishnamurti had several talks on this theme and a few times during his talks or dialogues he said that the morality of society actually demonstrated immorality. 

joy

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by walt