system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

[Jehu]

Ethical systems, of which there are already enough, are merely a provisional means of enable people to live together in relative peace; they are not a means of realizing one’s true nature. However, in the case of monastic communities, rules of conduct are instrumental in enabling those who are engaged in the pursuit of truth to maintain the sort of environment that is conducive to their search. However, once true realization has occurred, ethical systems are no longer require; for an awakened one will spontaneously do whatever is appropriate to the given situation.

[Kunga]

how do you know you're awakened ?

[Ataraxia]

Ethical systems, of which there are already enough, are merely a provisional means of enable people to live together in relative peace

Well played, sir.

Herd-Instinct. Wherever we meet with a morality we find a valuation and order of rank of the human impulses and activities. These valuations and orders of rank are always the expression of the needs of a community or herd: that which is in the first place to its advantage - and in the second place and third place - is also the authoritative standard for the worth of every individual. By morality the individual is taught to become a function of the herd, and to ascribe to himself value only as a function. As the conditions for the maintenance of one community have been very different from those of another community, there have been very different moralities; and in respect to the future essential transformations of herds and communities, states and societies, one can prophesy that there will still be very divergent moralities. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.
- The Gay Science.

[otiosedodge]

That wouldn't be a system of ethics. It's a way to teach about emptiness, and is a good way to orient a great many persons.

.

It seems to me that a system of ethics provides guidelines for moral conduct, and what if moral conduct entails helping people along their way towards realizing emptiness, even if this helping takes the form of giving someone food when they don't have it (and thus giving them further opportunity to eventually realize emptiness)?

[otiosedodge]

Ethical systems, of which there are already enough, are merely a provisional means of enable people to live together in relative peace; they are not a means of realizing one’s true nature. However, in the case of monastic communities, rules of conduct are instrumental in enabling those who are engaged in the pursuit of truth to maintain the sort of environment that is conducive to their search. However, once true realization has occurred, ethical systems are no longer require; for an awakened one will spontaneously do whatever is appropriate to the given situation.

I never claimed that the ethical system which I proposed would be a tool to directly produce realization. In fact, I think that the system would provide exactly what you mentioned, namely, a system that would create beneficial conditions for realization. In addition, it seems to me that it could do this because it would be based on the fundamental insights of realization. I am not claiming that I need this system for myself; I would produce it as a normative system for society at large.

[otiosedodge]

how do you know you're awakened ?

Any further description of this would be mere repetition. Of course, I found that to achieve what I've achieved, intense and prolonged analysis was needed to de-condition myself. I'm speaking purely on the conventional level here, of course. If you're asking me this question after reading this topic, you may want to re-read and 'unpack' what I've written. And/or you may want to ask a more specific question.

[otiosedodge]

Ethical systems, of which there are already enough, are merely a provisional means of enable people to live together in relative peace

Well played, sir.

Herd-Instinct. Wherever we meet with a morality we find a valuation and order of rank of the human impulses and activities. These valuations and orders of rank are always the expression of the needs of a community or herd: that which is in the first place to its advantage - and in the second place and third place - is also the authoritative standard for the worth of every individual. By morality the individual is taught to become a function of the herd, and to ascribe to himself value only as a function. As the conditions for the maintenance of one community have been very different from those of another community, there have been very different moralities; and in respect to the future essential transformations of herds and communities, states and societies, one can prophesy that there will still be very divergent moralities. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.
- The Gay Science.

I find that there is a very simple way to largely refute this analysis. We all share the same fundamental emotions. (If you need proof of this, read up on Paul Ekman.) We all seek happiness -- though we may often (and unconsciously) behave in ways that directly counter its development. Human values and thus morality are agglomerated around emotional states. Sure, there are 'valuations and orders of rank' -- they are based on the fact that human beings seek happiness and seek to reduce destructive emotions, and thus rank certain thoughts, emotions, and actions according to this search. While morality undoubtedly has some of its roots in the herd-instinct, at a fundamental level, it is based in our search for happiness.

[Jehu]

how do you know you're awakened ?

There are many different stages of awakening; for example, when one gives rise to the thought that things may not be as they appear, that is the first stage of awakening. Then, when one has stilled the mind so that the faculty of insight is made possible, that is another stage of awakening. The final stage, which is called “perfect awakening’, cannot be achieved while there still remains any thought of ‘me’ or ‘mine’, for these thoughts are the root of all selfish actions, and the source of all suffering.

[Jehu]

I never claimed that the ethical system which I proposed would be a tool to directly produce realization. In fact, I think that the system would provide exactly what you mentioned, namely, a system that would create beneficial conditions for realization. In addition, it seems to me that it could do this because it would be based on the fundamental insights of realization. I am not claiming that I need this system for myself; I would produce it as a normative system for society at large.

Of what value would an ethical system that is based on an awakened view of reality be to the vast majority of people, given that they are not awakened, and hold an entirely different view of the world? The awakened ones of the past have left us numerous systems of commandments, precepts and laws, all of which were intended to make us live a better life, but still we lie, cheat, steal and murder one another. How will developing still another system succeed where all these others have failed?

[otiosedodge]

I never claimed that the ethical system which I proposed would be a tool to directly produce realization. In fact, I think that the system would provide exactly what you mentioned, namely, a system that would create beneficial conditions for realization. In addition, it seems to me that it could do this because it would be based on the fundamental insights of realization. I am not claiming that I need this system for myself; I would produce it as a normative system for society at large.

Of what value would an ethical system that is based on an awakened view of reality be to the vast majority of people, given that they are not awakened, and hold an entirely different view of the world? The awakened ones of the past have left us numerous systems of commandments, precepts and laws, all of which were intended to make us live a better life, but still we lie, cheat, steal and murder one another. How will developing still another system succeed where all these others have failed?

I think you'll agree that the modern world is exponentially more complex than the world of the vast majority of awakened ones who came before us. As I said before, I would begin an ethical system with an analysis of the ultimate nature of reality in order to awaken and then build the ethical system on top of that realization. In the modern world, I think that there are a number of ethical systems built on shaky foundations. That's why I think that there is room for a system built on the realization of ultimate reality.

[Anders Schlander]

Just to note: We don't all share the fundemental need to archieve the emotion of happiness, but when people do so, they are like the man who doesn't cultivate the lot of land that he grows his plants on; his land slowly withers and dies, and we experience suffering. The lot of land in this case would be the infinite.

Suffering is the root of happiness, when you stop believing in the delusion there is no running from suffering, and no need of happiness. That is why friends are horrible to eachother, they do it in order to see how much they are willing to suffer for their happiness. (edit) but it could be any attachment, there is always a willingness to be put through suffering to sustain happiness

[otiosedodge]

Just to note: We don't all share the fundemental need to archieve the emotion of happiness, but when people do so, they are like the man who doesn't cultivate the lot of land that he grows his plants on; his land slowly withers and dies, and we experience suffering. The lot of land in this case would be the infinite.

Suffering is the root of happiness, when you stop believing in the delusion there is no running from suffering, and no need of happiness. That is why friends are horrible to eachother, they do it in order to see how much they are willing to suffer for their happiness. (edit) but it could be any attachment, there is always a willingness to be put through suffering to sustain happiness

I suppose that it depends under what definition of happiness you're operating. In a regular dictionary, joy will be equated with happiness, and joy is what I was aiming for in my statement. In my experience, joy is the outcome of ultimate realization. Call it 'stillness', call it 'peace', but the point is that there is, paradoxically, a 'place' of rest when we operate outside of conceptual construction. However, for the vast majority of humans, I still hold that they seek happiness, which, to them, is a crude approximation of the realization of ultimate reality.

I can't say I fully understand what you mean by the second sentence of the second paragraph of your post. Do you mean that people are willing to inflict suffering on others for their own happiness?

[Jehu]

I think you'll agree that the modern world is exponentially more complex than the world of the vast majority of awakened ones who came before us. As I said before, I would begin an ethical system with an analysis of the ultimate nature of reality in order to awaken and then build the ethical system on top of that realization. In the modern world, I think that there are a number of ethical systems built on shaky foundations. That's why I think that there is room for a system built on the realization of ultimate reality.

A noble endeavour, but one that is fatally flawed, for it rests on the premise that the vast majority of people will understand and accept your metaphysical view of reality. This, however, is not the case, for most people have neither the capacity to understand such a subtle doctrine, nor the inclination to even try. It is for this reason, that realism continues to be the prominent worldview, in spite of the findings of modern physics to the contrary; as it is the view that requires the least amount of intellectual effort. However, even if you could convince the majority that you view of reality was the correct one, you would be no further ahead, for those that held to the right view would require no system of ethics whatsoever, and those that did not, would still refuse to follow a system that base upon a view they did not share.

The best, I believe, that we can hope to accomplish, is to develop a rational philosophical system which, starting from first principles and self-evident premises, and proceeding by only by deductive implication, will demonstrate that only an essentially cognizant reality can provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the experiential world. Then, perhaps, things might begin to change in a significant way.

[Kunga]

In my experience, joy is the outcome of ultimate realization

What is go great about it ?
I seriously would like to know why is it such Joy to realize the Ultimate Truth ?
Shit still happens.

Please explain why it's so wonderful/great/peaceful/Joyful.....when there is STILL SUFFERING HERE ????

Thankyou.

And if you ARE Enlightened ...don't you understand/know everything ?????

[otiosedodge]

I think you'll agree that the modern world is exponentially more complex than the world of the vast majority of awakened ones who came before us. As I said before, I would begin an ethical system with an analysis of the ultimate nature of reality in order to awaken and then build the ethical system on top of that realization. In the modern world, I think that there are a number of ethical systems built on shaky foundations. That's why I think that there is room for a system built on the realization of ultimate reality.

A noble endeavour, but one that is fatally flawed, for it rests on the premise that the vast majority of people will understand and accept your metaphysical view of reality. This, however, is not the case, for most people have neither the capacity to understand such a subtle doctrine, nor the inclination to even try. It is for this reason, that realism continues to be the prominent worldview, in spite of the findings of modern physics to the contrary; as it is the view that requires the least amount of intellectual effort. However, even if you could convince the majority that you view of reality was the correct one, you would be no further ahead, for those that held to the right view would require no system of ethics whatsoever, and those that did not, would still refuse to follow a system that base upon a view they did not share.

The best, I believe, that we can hope to accomplish, is to develop a rational philosophical system which, starting from first principles and self-evident premises, and proceeding by only by deductive implication, will demonstrate that only an essentially cognizant reality can provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the experiential world. Then, perhaps, things might begin to change in a significant way.

I don't think that the vast majority of people would need to realize ultimate reality in order for a new system of ethics to be successful. I think that just a substantial proportion of agnostic altruists realizing ultimate reality would be enough to make it worthwhile as an endeavour. As for moral conduct being obvious to those who realize ultimate reality: as someone who has realized ultimate reality, I still have no idea of how much of my future salaries I should donate to charity. I also don't know if every product I buy is ultimately an ethical choice. It seems that someone should be doing the legwork. Thos are obviously just two examples.

[otiosedodge]

In my experience, joy is the outcome of ultimate realization

What is go great about it ?
I seriously would like to know why is it such Joy to realize the Ultimate Truth ?
Shit still happens.

Please explain why it's so wonderful/great/peaceful/Joyful.....when there is STILL SUFFERING HERE ????

Thankyou.

And if you ARE Enlightened ...don't you understand/know everything ?????

Though shit may still happen (on a conventional level, of course), and we may still experience negative emotions, there is an underlying joy to life which supplants any notion of that suffering being ultimately real. The joy is infinitely deeper than the negative emotion experienced, as well as being perpetually present (for everyone). Your suffering and your 'here' are mere objectifications. Ominiscience as a result of realization is a Buddhist myth.

[Anders Schlander]

Just to note: We don't all share the fundemental need to archieve the emotion of happiness, but when people do so, they are like the man who doesn't cultivate the lot of land that he grows his plants on; his land slowly withers and dies, and we experience suffering. The lot of land in this case would be the infinite.

Suffering is the root of happiness, when you stop believing in the delusion there is no running from suffering, and no need of happiness. That is why friends are horrible to eachother, they do it in order to see how much they are willing to suffer for their happiness. (edit) but it could be any attachment, there is always a willingness to be put through suffering to sustain happiness

I suppose that it depends under what definition of happiness you're operating. In a regular dictionary, joy will be equated with happiness, and joy is what I was aiming for in my statement. In my experience, joy is the outcome of ultimate realization. Call it 'stillness', call it 'peace', but the point is that there is, paradoxically, a 'place' of rest when we operate outside of conceptual construction. However, for the vast majority of humans, I still hold that they seek happiness, which, to them, is a crude approximation of the realization of ultimate reality.

I can't say I fully understand what you mean by the second sentence of the second paragraph of your post. Do you mean that people are willing to inflict suffering on others for their own happiness?

Yes, perhaps there a momentarily stillness and peace. But it is not something you should get attached to and cling to as ultimately real; even if that is the usual mode of being, and it isn't something you have to seek, either. It's just a natural consequence that happens to appear.


2. "I can't say I fully understand what you mean by the second sentence of the second paragraph of your post. Do you mean that people are willing to inflict suffering on others for their own happiness?"

Yes, i did. People will gladly suffer for happiness.

There's a nice video by Dan Rowden on his MenOftheInfinite channel called Ego, Attachment, Fame.

[otiosedodge]

Just to note: We don't all share the fundemental need to archieve the emotion of happiness, but when people do so, they are like the man who doesn't cultivate the lot of land that he grows his plants on; his land slowly withers and dies, and we experience suffering. The lot of land in this case would be the infinite.

Suffering is the root of happiness, when you stop believing in the delusion there is no running from suffering, and no need of happiness. That is why friends are horrible to eachother, they do it in order to see how much they are willing to suffer for their happiness. (edit) but it could be any attachment, there is always a willingness to be put through suffering to sustain happiness

I suppose that it depends under what definition of happiness you're operating. In a regular dictionary, joy will be equated with happiness, and joy is what I was aiming for in my statement. In my experience, joy is the outcome of ultimate realization. Call it 'stillness', call it 'peace', but the point is that there is, paradoxically, a 'place' of rest when we operate outside of conceptual construction. However, for the vast majority of humans, I still hold that they seek happiness, which, to them, is a crude approximation of the realization of ultimate reality.

I can't say I fully understand what you mean by the second sentence of the second paragraph of your post. Do you mean that people are willing to inflict suffering on others for their own happiness?

Yes, perhaps there a momentarily stillness and peace. But it is not something you should get attached to and cling to as ultimately real; even if that is the usual mode of being, and it isn't something you have to seek, either. It's just a natural consequence that happens to appear.


2. "I can't say I fully understand what you mean by the second sentence of the second paragraph of your post. Do you mean that people are willing to inflict suffering on others for their own happiness?"

Yes, i did. People will gladly suffer for happiness.

There's a nice video by Dan Rowden on his MenOftheInfinite channel called Ego, Attachment, Fame.

I would argue that the stillness of non-conceptual being (as far as it can be described by words) is the only real thing, the ultimate nature of reality. I agree that it's not something to be sought. It's our natural mode of being. How can we get attached to something which is non-conceptual? Maybe we can get attached to a conceptual construct of it, but that's certainly different than getting attached to what 'it' is.

I agree that people will suffer for happiness.

And I'll check out the video, thanks.

[Kunga]

how do you know you're awakened ?

Any further description of this would be mere repetition. Of course, I found that to achieve what I've achieved, intense and prolonged analysis was needed to de-condition myself. I'm speaking purely on the conventional level here, of course. If you're asking me this question after reading this topic, you may want to re-read and 'unpack' what I've written. And/or you may want to ask a more specific question.

i was referring to the totality of "us"
not specifically "you"

i feel like i'm constantly going back and forth between conventional reality and ultimate reality
as we need to function in this world as separate
then to see problems and situations in another perspective... shifting my awareness to the ultimate truth

Example:

i work and live from paycheck to paycheck
i have plenty of food and water and a roof over my head

then i see "others" that are less fortunate than "myself"
knowing that those "others" are also "me"
my heart goes out to "them"
and i do what "i" can to assist
other parts of "myself" that are struggling

then i see "someone" that does something atrocious against "another"
and it makes me sick and confused that it can possibly happen
(like the holocaust for example)


that's why it's so important to know the truth
seeing others as separate as yourself
is the cause of predjudice, hatred, greed

so many times i've regretted saying unkind things to people...speaking harshly
sometimes it's nesessary to wake people up that way
but for the most part
speaking softly and with kindness
could of been more effective

the ethics of love and compassion towards all would be ideal
i think that's what Jesus and Buddha were trying to do essentially.

one thing that seems to be a strong factor in realization is having a pure heart.

[otiosedodge]

how do you know you're awakened ?

Any further description of this would be mere repetition. Of course, I found that to achieve what I've achieved, intense and prolonged analysis was needed to de-condition myself. I'm speaking purely on the conventional level here, of course. If you're asking me this question after reading this topic, you may want to re-read and 'unpack' what I've written. And/or you may want to ask a more specific question.

i was referring to the totality of "us"
not specifically "you"

i feel like i'm constantly going back and forth between conventional reality and ultimate reality
as we need to function in this world as separate
then to see problems and situations in another perspective... shifting my awareness to the ultimate truth

Example:

i work and live from paycheck to paycheck
i have plenty of food and water and a roof over my head

then i see "others" that are less fortunate than "myself"
knowing that those "others" are also "me"
my heart goes out to "them"
and i do what "i" can to assist
other parts of "myself" that are struggling

then i see "someone" that does something atrocious against "another"
and it makes me sick and confused that it can possibly happen
(like the holocaust for example)


that's why it's so important to know the truth
seeing others as separate as yourself
is the cause of predjudice, hatred, greed

so many times i've regretted saying unkind things to people...speaking harshly
sometimes it's nesessary to wake people up that way
but for the most part
speaking softly and with kindness
could of been more effective

the ethics of love and compassion towards all would be ideal
i think that's what Jesus and Buddha were trying to do essentially.

one thing that seems to be a strong factor in realization is having a pure heart.

Oh, OK, I didn't realize you weren't referring to me.

I think that as time goes on, you may find that you can integrate the two levels of reality, and that you will experience a fundamental, unshakeable joy, that continues to reside in you even as you solve conventional problems and experience conventional states.

I agree with you that compassion is also very important. Waking people up to their true nature is a wonderful thing to do, whatever step on the path they happen to be on.

In my experience, being altruistic helped me a great deal in my realizations, simply because it helped me to accept that there were others out there who wanted to help too. I think it's very hard for someone unaltruistic to be helped, since they have little concept of wanting to help others.

Good luck on your path. :)

[Jehu]

I don't think that the vast majority of people would need to realize ultimate reality in order for a new system of ethics to be successful. I think that just a substantial proportion of agnostic altruists realizing ultimate reality would be enough to make it worthwhile as an endeavour. As for moral conduct being obvious to those who realize ultimate reality: as someone who has realized ultimate reality, I still have no idea of how much of my future salaries I should donate to charity. I also don't know if every product I buy is ultimately an ethical choice. It seems that someone should be doing the legwork. Thos are obviously just two examples.

Perhaps then you have not fully realized the true nature or reality, for you see, no fully awakened one would characterized themselves as an “agnostic altruist”, nor would they imagine that they could fulfil their function in the world by carefully planning their future acts of charity or honing their skills as a ethical consumer. An awakened one acts spontaneously, not in accordance with some code of conduct, but from their own intrinsic compassion.

[otiosedodge]

I don't think that the vast majority of people would need to realize ultimate reality in order for a new system of ethics to be successful. I think that just a substantial proportion of agnostic altruists realizing ultimate reality would be enough to make it worthwhile as an endeavour. As for moral conduct being obvious to those who realize ultimate reality: as someone who has realized ultimate reality, I still have no idea of how much of my future salaries I should donate to charity. I also don't know if every product I buy is ultimately an ethical choice. It seems that someone should be doing the legwork. Thos are obviously just two examples.

Perhaps then you have not fully realized the true nature or reality, for you see, no fully awakened one would characterized themselves as an “agnostic altruist”, nor would they imagine that they could fulfil their function in the world by carefully planning their future acts of charity or honing their skills as a ethical consumer. An awakened one acts spontaneously, not in accordance with some code of conduct, but from their own intrinsic compassion.

I didn't refer to myself as an agnostic altruistic; I said that I thought that many agnostic altruists realizing the ultimate nature of reality would justify the construction of an ethical system predicated on the ultimate nature of reality.

As far as a fully awakened one acting spontaneously: are you speaking from experience? Or if you're speaking from an analytical standpoint, perhaps you could justify your point.

[Is.]

Hello, otiosedodge!

Look into Reality right now. What can be changed? What needs to be made better? Right, nothing.

In other words, Reality has nothing to do with morality. Morality belongs instead in the conventional realm, the realm of thought and concept. That is not to belittle morality and ethics in any way, but simply to situate it in its proper context. Why do we need to do this? Well, who've heard about the enlightened zen master Harada Daiun Sogaku who said:

"[If ordered to] march: tramp tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [the Japanese invasion of China]".

So, here we can clearly see that a realization of emptiness of self and phenomena and subtle phenomena has no impact on morality and ethics. Instead, as David Quinn said: "[...]everything hinges on one's core value in life." So if you want to be more or less ethical, you just need to condition the mind in such a way. How do we do that? Well, first we need to look at how morality develops. Here is a pretty good theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%2 ... evelopment

Once we've figured out where we are in the hierarchy, we can either choose to stay there, or continue to grow by nurturing the right conditions which causes values-development to occur in the mind.

Pax!

[Jehu]

I didn't refer to myself as an agnostic altruistic; I said that I thought that many agnostic altruists realizing the ultimate nature of reality would justify the construction of an ethical system predicated on the ultimate nature of reality.

Alright, but why do think that these agnostic altruists, or any sort of altruists, should need to construct a system of ethics? Does not pure altruism represent the ideal in ethical behaviour? Further more, you have still not said why it is that you think that those who are not altruistic, and who have not realized their true nature, would willingly submit to such an ethical system.

As far as a fully awakened one acting spontaneously: are you speaking from experience? Or if you're speaking from an analytical standpoint, perhaps you could justify your point.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is unfolding exactly as it must, and if we wish to put an end to suffering, be it our own or that of other’s, we need only realize our intrinsic nature, and act accordingly. Just as it is in the nature of a knife to cut, or a of fish to breath water, it is in the nature of a human being to sooth the suffering of other sentient beings. To accomplish this function, we do not require plans or systems, for inherent within each of us is that which is required to fulfil our intended purpose - compassion.

[otiosedodge]

Hello, otiosedodge!

Look into Reality right now. What can be changed? What needs to be made better? Right, nothing.

In other words, Reality has nothing to do with morality. Morality belongs instead in the conventional realm, the realm of thought and concept. That is not to belittle morality and ethics in any way, but simply to situate it in its proper context. Why do we need to do this? Well, who've heard about the enlightened zen master Harada Daiun Sogaku who said:

"[If ordered to] march: tramp tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [the Japanese invasion of China]".

So, here we can clearly see that a realization of emptiness of self and phenomena and subtle phenomena has no impact on morality and ethics. Instead, as David Quinn said: "[...]everything hinges on one's core value in life." So if you want to be more or less ethical, you just need to condition the mind in such a way. How do we do that? Well, first we need to look at how morality develops. Here is a pretty good theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%2 ... evelopment

Once we've figured out where we are in the hierarchy, we can either choose to stay there, or continue to grow by nurturing the right conditions which causes values-development to occur in the mind.

Pax!

Hi Is,

While I agree with you that on the ultimate level, there is no connection between morality and reality, I think it is nonetheless important to get as many people as possible wake from the nightmare of purely conventional thought. This is of course merely an opinion, as you say. That said, I still think that realization of ultimate reality can be a useful tool for helping people to experience non-conceptual joy, even if there is no connection between moral action and ultimate realization, speaking from an ultimate viewpoint.

I'm familiar with Kohlberg, and I very much appreciate his views.

Best,
Otiose