Buddhist story on Moral Absolutism?

[turkalurk]

Came across this story, and it reminded me of my discussion with Murphy about moral absolutes and buddhism.

Buddhist monk story...

Two Buddhist Monks were on a journey, one was a senior monk, the other a junior monk. During their journey they approached a raging river and on the river bank stood a young lady. She was clearly concerned about how she would get to the other side of the river without drowning.

The junior monk walked straight past her without giving it a thought and he crossed the river. The senior monk picked up the woman and carried her across the river. He placed her down, they parted ways with the woman and on they went with the journey.

As the journey went on, the senior monk could see some concern on the junior monk's mind, he asked what was wrong. The junior monk replied, "how could you carry her like that? You know we can't touch women, it's against our way of life". The senior monk answered, "I left the woman at the rivers edge a long way back, why are you still carrying her?"

 

[RecoveringPothead]

I love that one. I don't relate to it as anything related to moral absolutes. To be honest I'm on the fence on the issue of moral absolutes.

Still, what a great illustration of the way we carry thoughts around with us and they become a burden. Better to let it be and stay in the present moment.

 

[turkalurk]

I love that one. I don't relate to it as anything related to moral absolutes. To be honest I'm on the fence on the issue of moral absolutes.

Still, what a great illustration of the way we carry thoughts around with us and they become a burden. Better to let it be and stay in the present moment.

I don't believe moral absolutism is congruent to Buddhism for, what I would gather to be, obvious reasons. This story was about more than just carrying our thoughts with us. The young monk was concerned because his elder had "broken the rules"(absolutism). The very nature of dogmatism implies an overwhelming attachment to a particular paridigm. Rules are meant to guide us to "right" action. They are not meant to be followed blindly without applying any underlying context.

The woman needed help, so the monk did the work and left it behind. It is more important that the good work be done, rather than to intellectualize something as simple as lending a helpful hand. To me, it is selfish to refuse to help solely because you have some religious code to adhere to. If your only incentive is to maintain a pious sense of moral superiority, then you should be willing to sacrifice the appearance of integrity in order to fulfill the deeper virtue of altruism. Sometimes we get on a high horse and our sense of integrity becomes so important to us, that we get shortsighted with our ethics. We get judgemental. We forget that moral decisions require us to genuinely attempt to understand our motivations behind the decisions we make. There is no easy way out. It takes unimaginable effort to understand one's motivations enough to conquer egoic tendencies.

 

[RecoveringPothead]

I don't believe moral absolutism is congruent to Buddhism for, what I would gather to be, obvious reasons. This story was about more than just carrying our thoughts with us. The young monk was concerned because his elder had "broken the rules"(absolutism). The very nature of dogmatism implies an overwhelming attachment to a particular paridigm. Rules are meant to guide us to "right" action. They are not meant to be followed blindly without applying any underlying context.

The woman needed help, so the monk did the work and left it behind. It is more important that the good work be done, rather than to intellectualize something as simple as lending a helpful hand. To me, it is selfish to refuse to help solely because you have some religious code to adhere to. If your only incentive is to maintain a pious sense of moral superiority, then you should be willing to sacrifice the appearance of integrity in order to fulfill the deeper virtue of altruism. Sometimes we get on a high horse and our sense of integrity becomes so important to us, that we get shortsighted with our ethics. We get judgemental. We forget that moral decisions require us to genuinely attempt to understand our motivations behind the decisions we make. There is no easy way out. It takes unimaginable effort to understand one's motivations enough to conquer egoic tendencies.

I think I see what you're getting at. Moral absolutism is a trap people fall into when they believe their way is the only right way and it blinds them to their own egoic nature. Moral relativism makes a lot more sense when you consider the complex nature of reality so long as certain basic principles are taken into account such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

[Ninae]

I don't think this is really connected to absolutism or not. It's more an example of an exception to a general rule that you should be able to see if you use common sense. Like killing is wrong but euthanisia can be fine.

But it still doesn't say there's no right or wrong. Killing is still wrong and touching women in another context would still be wrong. It looks like many take the natural exceptions to many absolutes to mean there aren't any or use them to defend wrong actions.

You can argue that drugs aren't absolutely wrong, which is true, but many will take that further to argue hardcore addiction that ruins their life therefore also isn't wrong. When these two things aren't really related or recreational or moderate use can be something completely different.

 

[swilow]

I too wouldn't interpret this story as being about moral absolutism. I seems to be more focusing on the idea of attachment to regret and the futility of it. The moral part seems to actually be subsumed by the conclusion, which implies that, if one has committed a wrong action, one should try and move on from it, immediately. In a sense, the wrong that the younger monk perpetrated is seen as inconsequential in comparison to wrong of his remaining fixated upon it.

I think I like the young monk more, for recognising how he committed wrong and (possibly) regretting it. Its from that that we learn I think. The old monk doesn't even reprimand the young monk for his rudeness and lack of courtesy. He uses it to make a minor ethical point which is based around the self, rather then making what I see as the greater point, that we should always try to help those in need.

The woman needed help, so the monk did the work and left it behind. It is more important that the good work be done, rather than to intellectualize something as simple as lending a helpful hand. To me, it is selfish to refuse to help solely because you have some religious code to adhere to. If your only incentive is to maintain a pious sense of moral superiority, then you should be willing to sacrifice the appearance of integrity in order to fulfill the deeper virtue of altruism. Sometimes we get on a high horse and our sense of integrity becomes so important to us, that we get shortsighted with our ethics. We get judgemental. We forget that moral decisions require us to genuinely attempt to understand our motivations behind the decisions we make. There is no easy way out. It takes unimaginable effort to understand one's motivations enough to conquer egoic tendencies.

Agreed. I'm off the opinon that morality is not objective or absolute. Religions make these claims, and that is why doing wrong can somehow be seen as doing right. Morals need to be flexible and be shaped to fit relevant situations. The moral values of societies change often, which leads one to wonder how absolute morals could be.

I do notice a lot of discussion here recently about ego and egotism. I'm not entirely convinced that ego is such a negative; I think its as innate and inherent as most psychological structures (if it even exists). Its the framework through which we filter the world and can't really be escaped from (for 'normal' people). I feel like we should use our ego to give ourselves strength and convictions, through which we could derive the motivation to do good. In a way, if someone was to save a drowning baby to appease their own sense of potential guilt, that's almost immaterial; the fact that they saved the baby is really the only thing that has objectively occurred. The universe appears blind to moral decisions. If pleasing myself enables me to do good, I see no real harm.

 

[Ninae]

I think the main point was carrying something with you in the mind is worse than a physyical action like that that's a natural exception. Also similiar to the idea if you have committed adultery in your heart you have already committed adultery. I think it tries to show that what is in your mind is more important, like Buddhism does, than a natural exception to the rule (the focus isn't on that).

But I fully believe there are divine laws for human conduct, just like there are natural laws, and you can only be really free when your will is aligned with divine will.


"True morality is everywhere manifest in Nature, the extension of the natural laws that govern our psychic life. When human beings break these laws they pay by suffering or illness. You may be surprised to learn that true morality is not a limitation, on the contrary, it confers tremendous freedom and increases our power of action. If we obeyed these laws both in our own lives and in our dealings with others, the result would be the ideal society."

"Unlike human justice, divine justice judges not only people's actions but also their thoughts, their feelings, and their intentions. Suppose you have consciously given bad advice and have driven someone to despair. What tribunal on earth could condemn such behaviour? None, because materially, objectively, there is nothing you can be reproached for. If that person appeals to a judge, saying: ‘Look how so-and-so has driven me to the depths of despair!' the judge will answer that the law makes no provision for such a case, that he can do nothing. There are countless ways of doing wrong without transgressing human law, but we cannot escape divine justice."

"You cannot escape or bypass divine laws. That is why it is useless to consult astrologers, as some do, so as to be warned of losses or accidents to which you are exposed. Whatever you do, you will not avoid anything: you cannot escape fate with trickeries. The only thing you can do is work with the light so that, when trials come, you can better put up with them."

"The Mother’s law is based on the ability of nature (the Mother) to remember everything. All actions are recorded on the Akasha or ethers of life. Nature has succeeded in registering everything and this is what moral law is based upon: the memory of nature. All cosmic moral law is based on the law of recording. Yes, nature has a memory that never forgets, and so much the worse for the person who does not take this memory into consideration."

"Thus the Father created the Mother, who operates lawfully. Her laws take into account everything that happens, affect everything, and remember everything. No one can escape their operation. The Mother’s laws will operate perfectly and unfailingly. They put everything right and lead us to the truth of who we are, the knowing of which is the purpose for us leaving the Father’s domain and entering the Mother’s."

"Farmers were the first moral philosophers; they don’t expect to reap if they have not sown, and they know very well that if they sow cabbages they will not harvest carrots. How can someone who sows nothing but hatred and strife hope to reap a harvest of love and peace? If you want a marble palace you are not going to start building with clay bricks. If you want a healthy body you are not going to give it poisonous food. How can anyone expect to develop a healthy, sturdy psyche, a lucid mind and a generous heart if he is seething with anarchic thoughts and feelings poisoned by his own greed and resentment?"

"Exactly as we sift and select suitable food or building materials, we have to sift and select the thoughts and feelings that present themselves to us. The laws that govern the psychic life are the same as those which have already been seen to govern other aspects of nature or technology. It was neither man nor society as a whole that invented morality: it is intrinsic to nature, to every aspect and dimension of nature."

- Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov


http://www.prosveta-usa.com/cosmic-moral-laws