The Golden Rule in Early Buddhism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- The Golden Rule plays a key role in early Buddhist ethics. I'll show where we find it, as well as how the Buddha seems to have derived it from a principle of psychology. I'll also consider the question of why the rule is expressed negatively in early Buddhism.
🧡 If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
📙 Check out my book, A Handbook of Early Buddhist Wisdom, with a Foreword by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
☸️ Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
🎙Check out my podcast with Jon Aaron, Diggin' the Dharma: digginthedharma.com/
✅ Video recommended:
Gauging Progress on the Buddhist Path: The Traditional Four Stages -- • Gauging Progress on th... (Discusses the role of stream entry).
✅ Suttas mentioned:
suttacentral.net/sn3.8/en/sujato
suttacentral.net/sn55.7/en/su...
suttacentral.net/snp3.11/en/s...
suttacentral.net/dhp129-145/e...
✅ Other references:
www.themindingcentre.org/dhar...
www.themindingcentre.org/dhar...
Webpage: www.dougsdharma.com/
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Mastodon: mindly.social/@dougsdharma
Instagram: / dougsdharma
Threads: www.threads.net/@dougsdharma
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/dougsdharma....
Thumbnail image courtesy of Josch13 at Pixabay.
❤️ Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Anonymous (3)
John Oborne
DunJing
Jimmy Maa
Debbie Mattison
Steve H.
Ron Peat
Michael S. Kearns
Anne
Matthew Smith
Shantha Wengappuli
Karma_CAC
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
Upayadhi
Andi and Erik
ATGuerrero686
Michael Scherrer
khobe schofield
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Blaze Way
Sonny Flink
Steve Marlor
Joy L Lee
Andrew Tom
Anthony Tucker
Karlee R
Ethan M
Billy in Singapore
Olivia Otter
Carl Lennartson
xiao mao
Jeff Harvey
Andrew Ingrouille
Kenneth Grandchamp
Rene Gariepy
Russell Needham
Smoggyrob
Mac Roja
Bernardo
Clémence Ortega Douville
Kwan Alex
Scott Johnston
Richard J Beninger
Nathanael O. Arnquist
SaturnianMandala
Trin P
Letesa Isler
Dorien Izel
Robert Paterson
Jake Tobiason
Louvenia Ortega
Steve S.
Richard Rappuhn
Sarah Kress
John Aaron
Paul Niklewski
Kong Ing Kai
Dave Gorman
rhys reed
Osanda Wijeratne
Scarlett Farrow
BJ - RetreaTours™
Michael Lefsky
Matthieu Tregnier
Roland Harris
karen
Dr Ru
Rob
00:00 Intro
01:47 The golden rule in early texts
02:26 The precepts
03:55 Villagers of the Bamboo Gate
07:00 Deriving the golden rule
10:41 Why the golden rule is expressed negatively
Note: as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Make that money, Douglas.
My take on why the rule is negative is that ending harmful behavior is always good, while positive behaviors are sometimes misguided and can lead to unintended consequences without sufficient wisdom.
Could be …
For me, the best basis for universal ethics according to Buddhism is: "Do not cause suffering to yourself or other beings."
In general it is easier for most people to refrain from harming others than it is to act deliberately for others' welfare, especially when it comes to those one has some animosity towards, or other species. Simply to be mindful of not harming others at all times no matter what is already a huge achievement for the vast majority. If everyone could do this all the time, already the suffering of countless beings will be decreased tremendously.
The Buddha was always very pragmatic. He probably realized the above and framed the golden rule like this as the first relatively easy step in developing morality, to be developed further with meditation and wisdom, which will gradually make one more and more inclined to act positively for the welfare of others by default.
I think the key to interpreting the Golden Rule in terms of Buddhism is to view it in terms of no-self, selflessness, nondualism, etc.:
We should see another as the same as ourselves, as if there were no boundary between ourself and others.
“As am I, so are they; as are they, so am I'-
Treating others like oneself, neither kill nor incite to kill.”
I might have translated that as:
“As am I, so are they [to me]; as are they [to me], so am I'-
Treating others [as] oneself, neither kill nor incite to kill.”
Or as the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 13 puts it:
“Love the world as your own self;
then you can truly care for all things.”
-Translation by Gia Fu Feng & Jane English
It’s really a matter of attaining a compassionate mind-state, where you see the unity and equality of all beings. One giant leap for discriminating mind, one small step for no-self.
It’s easy to forget that 2,500 years ago the world and India was a harsh , unforgiving environment and culture.
SHADE was a luxury , WATER was scarce . Killing , stealing , lying
selling making weapons was commonplace - it was a BRUTAL caste system
The Buddha’s approach to “avoid , refrain from “
what became defilements and hinderances
Was most practical - once rid of defilements
we can work on cultivation
“ Just go out and murder someone , then try to meditate. Try it
sometime .. you’ll see
Not so easy is it ?”
- Jack Kornfield ❤
Buddha's understanding of the human psychology is so astute. 😊
Thank you!
You bet!
Thank you so much!
🙏
He didn't say everyone loves themselves...he said I love self. The first statement looks outwards, the second looks inwards. The first statement is relative, the second is absolute.
Where did he say this?
Amazing 😊
Thanks 😄
Thanks!
🙏🙏
I find it hard to believe that it should be so easy to attain stream-entry. I mean, I know dhamma teachers who were monastics for 20 years, have a really good ethical conduct as well as access to jhanas, but still haven't attained it.
IMHO I think some Dhamma practitioners especially intellectuals and scholars make things to complicated which gets confusing to the subconscious mind and acts as an unknown obstacle. The Buddha was very pragmatic and taught just what was needed to reach awakening. We don’t need 84,000 teaching! This is where the KISS principle comes into play. Here’s what the Buddha said about this:
Saṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on the Truths
56.31. The Siṁsapa Grove
On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kosambi in a siṁsapa grove. Then the Blessed One took up a few siṁsapa leaves in his hand and addressed the bhikkhus thus: “What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more numerous: these few siṁsapa leaves that I have taken up in my hand or those in the siṁsapa grove overhead?”
“Venerable sir, the siṁsapa leaves that the Blessed One has taken up in his hand are few, but those in the siṁsapa grove overhead are numerous.”
“So too, bhikkhus, the things I have directly known but have not taught you are numerous, while the things I have taught you are few. And why, bhikkhus, have I not taught those many things? Because they are unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and do not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have not taught them.
“And what, bhikkhus, have I taught? I have taught: ‘This is suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ And why, bhikkhus, have I taught this? Because this is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have taught this.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”
PS: for those of us who don’t have access to an awakened teacher we must trust and rely on our own spiritual intuition as we know best what Dhamma medicine we need to reach awakening. 🙏🏼
Golden virtue ❤
Don't mix the positive and negative formulations, if you "do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" people may get angry.
True!
🙏
🙏🏼
I would have thought that an explanation of the Golden Rule, either positive or negative would be related to the Buddhist concept of vasana -- the residue left in the mind as a result of a past action. If one does unto others as one would not want done to oneself, that introduces a whole host of vasana consequences -- guilt, fear (of retribution), an ongoing conversation with oneself about what one did, etc. That makes the path that leads to nirvana the one in which one does not let these actions occur -- that would be the path of skillful means in this instance. Since we are calling it roughly equivalent to the positive Golden Rule, the latter is portrayed, even in the West, as the path of compassion. Either way, because it minimizes vasana, it promotes the joining of skillful means with wisdom in the form of sunyata.
So perhaps it is more of a practical thing.
Part of the reason it could be negative might be something similar to the philosophy of Schopenhauer's. Schopenhauer saw the world as being inherently bad and what was good was the negation of that evil. This led to him writing "pleasure is the negative thing and suffering the positive." Thats in the sense that suffering merely is, while pleasure comes from something that is a negation of reality
Arthur Schopenhauer said that buddhism was one of the schools of thought that was of "negative ethics," I'd love to hear it this is true or not
I don't think Buddhism sees the world as inherently bad; it's rather our tendency to cling to change that creates dukkha.
@@DougsDharma I agree, the "life is suffering" angle of the first noble truth is a mistranslation. My main question is since the first nt translate (roughly) as "life is dukkha?" which implies then the absence of greed, hate and delusion are where nirvana is obtained?
Do you think there is a logical reason as to why we should be putting more emphasis on removing suffering as opposed to optimizing joy or some kind of positive reward? I struggle with this. I know it intuitively, but I can't argue it. Are they both biases at the end of the day? Are we supposed to embrace suffering because it ultimately leads to more pleasure, or reject pleasure because it ultimately leads to more suffering? I've made my choice (you can probably guess which one it is), but maybe that's just me.
There is no pleasure in samsara. What we mistakenly think of as pleasure is the relief from pain.
@@saralamuni Perhaps, but I think suffering might not be real either
To address the first point, is that joy, just like all other feelings of emotions, is impermanent. You absolutely could optimize joy, but when has it ever lasted forever? In the case of samsara, it doesn't. It inevitably goes away. And yes, in some sense, they are biases based on your own individual experience, which is flawed simply because everyone has inherently different experiences in life. It's not about embracing or refusing suffering, the main purpose of what the buddha was trying to tell us was to simply accept it. Its to acknowledge that suffering is mind-made (created as an idea within your own mind). Once you acknowledge this, suffering in your life slowly becomes less and less, leading to nirvana, which is the extinguishing of negative desires. With regards to pleasure, @saralalumi is correct. to quote them directly, "There is no pleasure in samsara, what we mistakenly think of as pleasure is just simply relief from pain". The "Ultimate pleasure" is the pleasure of having a clear mind, having loving-kindess/compassion with all beings (which includes yourself), and the cessation of suffering.
@@mysterc5826 suffering may not be real, and sentient beings may not be real, but for sentient beings the suffering feels real
@@saralamuni But so does pleasure. So, we're back where we started.
can you make a video on the Gandhāran Buddhist text
Perhaps it was expressed negatively because it makes the people take it more seriously compared to the positives
They are also at least ostensibly easier to follow, to be generous in day to day life would be harder to figure out in comparison to just "don't steal."
Though immediately I realise that "don't steal" also relies on some form of interpretation.
@@alphasword5541 How so? I imagined it being "dont take without permission," is there some context I'm missing
@@jordanroberts2029 Well, if someone steals from you, can you steal it back? What about when things are technically shared, are there situations where it would be considered stealing? Even if you were to define it in part by it being underhanded there's still some interpretation.
I don't think the examples here are amazing but they're the basics of what I remember thinking about when I wrote that.
Hey I'm new :)
Welcome!
❤🐱🙏
"EVERY WISH FULFILLED" E.T.
Yeah, but why? Why should I not do that?
That’s where the “guardians of the world” come in:
ruclips.net/video/ZWs3yaOMcZo/видео.html
Every religion are like branches on one tree☮️
You have a cold? 🥶
Thanks!
🙏🙏
🙏