Good And Bad

[JurgenG]

It's probably a very dumb question but I was under the impression that Karma deals with cause and consequence but was in a way very neutral, just cause and consequence.

Also someone told me that the problem of the world, that Buddhism solved, was duality.

The notion of good and bad doesn't really fit with that. Could someone in very simple terms, I'm not a scholar in any way, explain me how the notion of good and bad fits with the Buddhist doctrine.

Many thanks in advance

JG

[Brucenkhamen]

Good and bad is just a value judgement we place on things.

Everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions, some we like and judge as good, some we dislike and judge as bad.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

[JurgenG]

^ It's the way I understand things too.

But if a kid is born with a cleft palate or some other problem, people will say it's karma, consequence of past life

How does it fit with Buddism doctrine ?

I mean there is a kind of "mechanical" part of Karma, a cause then a consequence. That I understand. Then it seems there is moral part, good and bad, not "mechanically" related. You do something bad in this life then you will have a cleft palate in the next. That I don't really understand.

[JurgenG]

Sorry, just to amend my previous post, it seems I focus on what is transmitted between lifes, which is an other debate, first you have to accept rebirth

Here I want more to focus on the "moral, good/bad" issue. Which means a "good" deed can have a mechanically unrelated "good" consequence, the only relation between them is both action and consequence are "good".

If there is nothing like good or bad, how is it possible ?

[rockyysdt]

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

That one is a little too simplistic.

If the action involves breaking a precept (harming, stealing, using intoxicants, lying or indulging in sexual misconduct), then there is an element of bad or good.

You can now say there is a value system (good & bad) at play.

Edited February 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

^ It's the way I understand things too.

But if a kid is born with a cleft palate or some other problem, people will say it's karma, consequence of past life

How does it fit with Buddism doctrine ?

I mean there is a kind of "mechanical" part of Karma, a cause then a consequence. That I understand. Then it seems there is moral part, good and bad, not "mechanically" related. You do something bad in this life then you will have a cleft palate in the next. That I don't really understand.

People are just guessing, and their guessing is not in line with the Buddhas teaching.

The Buddha taught that speculating about how current results came about due to past kamma is one of the imponderables, ie something you don't waste your time speculating about.

The word kamma means action, so the focus of the teaching is at the action end not the result end, the point of the teaching is to consider before you act this will have consequences, however popular culture has got it back to front.

Again it's not an issue of good or bad, it's just actions and results or consequences, good or bad is a value judgement we place on it. For example you drive while drunk most people would agree that's a bad action and the likely results will be unpleasant, therefore also bad.

[JurgenG]

^ It's the way I understand things too.

But if a kid is born with a cleft palate or some other problem, people will say it's karma, consequence of past life

How does it fit with Buddism doctrine ?

I mean there is a kind of "mechanical" part of Karma, a cause then a consequence. That I understand. Then it seems there is moral part, good and bad, not "mechanically" related. You do something bad in this life then you will have a cleft palate in the next. That I don't really understand.

People are just guessing, and their guessing is not in line with the Buddhas teaching.

The Buddha taught that speculating about how current results came about due to past kamma is one of the imponderables, ie something you don't waste your time speculating about.

The word kamma means action, so the focus of the teaching is at the action end not the result end, the point of the teaching is to consider before you act this will have consequences, however popular culture has got it back to front.

Again it's not an issue of good or bad, it's just actions and results or consequences, good or bad is a value judgement we place on it. For example you drive while drunk most people would agree that's a bad action and the likely results will be unpleasant, therefore also bad.

You make completely sense, at least to me.

About the consequence of our acts, I was really impressed when I started learning about Buddhism by what I read about right speech, that it wasn't only about not lying but also thinking of the consequence of our words. Then I realized that Buddhism was much deeper than other philosophy.

Thanks for the explanation

[sabaijai]

Theoretically it's simple. Rather than 'good' or 'bad,' canonical Buddhism postulates kusala (skilful/wholesome) and akusala (unskilful/wholesome) thought and action. Kusala thought/action bring kusala results (leading towards joy/liberation/nibbana), akusala thoughts/action bring akusala results (dukkha/anxiety/rebirth).

In actual practice to appreciate the difference between kusala and akusala at more than face value, at their grossest levels, requires dhamma study, whether through meditation, daily observation, texts or teachers.

[AYJAYDEE]

as i understand it, breaking a precept is neither good nor bad. its simply an unskillful act that will hiner ones ability to achieve mindfulness and calmness and hence hinder progress toward the gol of enlightenment.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

That one is a little too simplistic.

If the action involves breaking a precept (harming, stealing, using intoxicants, lying or indulging in sexual misconduct), then there is an element of bad or good.

You can now say there is a value system (good & bad) at play.

[AYJAYDEE]

and towards skillful typing, i might add! LOL

as i understand it, breaking a precept is neither good nor bad. its simply an unskillful act that will hiner ones ability to achieve mindfulness and calmness and hence hinder progress toward the gol of enlightenment.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

That one is a little too simplistic.

If the action involves breaking a precept (harming, stealing, using intoxicants, lying or indulging in sexual misconduct), then there is an element of bad or good.

You can now say there is a value system (good & bad) at play.

[rockyysdt]

as i understand it, breaking a precept is neither good nor bad. its simply an unskillful act that will hiner ones ability to achieve mindfulness and calmness and hence hinder progress toward the gol of enlightenment.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

That one is a little too simplistic.

If the action involves breaking a precept (harming, stealing, using intoxicants, lying or indulging in sexual misconduct), then there is an element of bad or good.

You can now say there is a value system (good & bad) at play.

You have me on board with this one.

None the less, an internal dialogue is saying that "unskillful/skillful" is a play of words, or just another way of saying the same thing (good/bad).

What makes something skillful (good attributes)?

What makes something unskillful (bad attributes)?

Edited February 5, 2011 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

In Buddhism, "skillful" is an intention/action that takes us towards nibbana, "unskillful" takes us away from nibbana.

[rockyysdt]

In Buddhism, "skillful" is an intention/action that takes us towards nibbana, "unskillful" takes us away from nibbana.

So is what you're saying:

It doesn't matter what action you take as long as the intention is skillful or not skillful.

The same action could be taken but intent decides its result.

For example, one could kill if they had the correct intention.

[Brucenkhamen]

What makes something skillful (good attributes)?

What makes something unskillful (bad attributes)?

Good/bad implies the goodness/badness is inherent in the object or the action, skillful/unskillful implies the action is appropriate or inappropriate under the circumstances and will lead to good/bad results, but not that the action is inherently good/bad in and of itself.

That's my take on it anyway.

[camerata]

For example, one could kill if they had the correct intention.

Killing doesn't take you closer to nibbana, so it can't be "correct intention" in the context of the Buddha-Dhamma.

[rockyysdt]

For example, one could kill if they had the correct intention.

Killing doesn't take you closer to nibbana, so it can't be "correct intention" in the context of the Buddha-Dhamma.

An example comes to mind:

A crazed killer is on a shooting rampage.

You have access to a weapon and your intention is to stop the slaughter of innocent children.

Do you allow the carnage to continue or do you act to stop it?

Is it correct intention?

Edited February 6, 2011 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

unskillful is something that hinders calmness. skilldul promotes it. no connotations of evil or punishments.

as i understand it, breaking a precept is neither good nor bad. its simply an unskillful act that will hiner ones ability to achieve mindfulness and calmness and hence hinder progress toward the gol of enlightenment.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

That one is a little too simplistic.

If the action involves breaking a precept (harming, stealing, using intoxicants, lying or indulging in sexual misconduct), then there is an element of bad or good.

You can now say there is a value system (good & bad) at play.

You have me on board with this one.

None the less, an internal dialogue is saying that "unskillful/skillful" is a play of words, or just another way of saying the same thing (good/bad).

What makes something skillful (good attributes)?

What makes something unskillful (bad attributes)?

[camerata]

You have access to a weapon and your intention is to stop the slaughter of innocent children.

Do you allow the carnage to continue or do you act to stop it?

Is it correct intention?

People ask monks these hypothetical questions all the time. Ajahn Sumedho answered by saying he didn't know what he would do (because until it happens one doesn't know all the factors and options involved), but he would "take the appropriate action at the time." There is always an option other than killing the gunmen. You could hold the gunman off until help came, you could try and incapacitate him, you could cover the children while they escaped, you could sacrifice yourself. The Buddha said don't kill, so presumably intentional killing never leads towards nibbana.

You never know the reality of a situation. What if your gunman had just shot two kids with tranquilizer darts and you thought they were dead from bullet wounds, so you kill him? What if he was a really nice guy who'd just had a nervous breakdown, or someone had spiked his drink with LSD? An arahant would take a course of action that would benefit everyone involved, including himself and the gunman.

What we do know is that the longer we practise/meditate, the more likely we are to make a decision based on the Dhamma rather than some other reason.

[Brucenkhamen]

What we do know is that the longer we practise/meditate, the more likely we are to make a decision based on the Dhamma rather than some other reason.

Hopefully if we're ever in a situation where we must make a split second life or death decision our mindfulness will be well established enough that we make it with full mindfulness.

[notime]

What we do know is that the longer we practise/meditate, the more likely we are to make a decision based on the Dhamma rather than some other reason.

Hopefully if we're ever in a situation where we must make a split second life or death decision our mindfulness will be well established enough that we make it with full mindfulness.

Golden words. Let's wish for higher mindfulness.

The way I see it is that rules like "don't kill" are postulates rather than ultimate truths. I can imagine that in a situation of war when under fire I would shoot back to save myself or people around me. I know that there may be some monks who let mosquitoes bite them but my mindfulness allows me to kill them to protect myself from pain and disease that they carry. Maybe I'm not a good Buddhist but looking around at this "Buddhist country" I see lies, cheating, stealing and killing at far higher levels than I would allow myself.

[khaowong1]

Good and bad is just a value judgement we place on things.

Everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions, some we like and judge as good, some we dislike and judge as bad.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

ha ha ha ... very good and to the point explanation..

[khaowong1]

and towards skillful typing, i might add! LOL

as i understand it, breaking a precept is neither good nor bad. its simply an unskillful act that will hiner ones ability to achieve mindfulness and calmness and hence hinder progress toward the gol of enlightenment.

A farmer might say it's snowing today that's bad, a skier might say it's snowing today that's good, who's right? Neither, it's just snowing.

That one is a little too simplistic.

If the action involves breaking a precept (harming, stealing, using intoxicants, lying or indulging in sexual misconduct), then there is an element of bad or good.

You can now say there is a value system (good & bad) at play.

[khaowong1]

^ It's the way I understand things too.

But if a kid is born with a cleft palate or some other problem, people will say it's karma, consequence of past life

How does it fit with Buddism doctrine ?

I mean there is a kind of "mechanical" part of Karma, a cause then a consequence. That I understand. Then it seems there is moral part, good and bad, not "mechanically" related. You do something bad in this life then you will have a cleft palate in the next. That I don't really understand.

Karma is such a complex subject. There are many teachers studying this subject. I met a monk from Chiang Mai in Bangkok last year that taught on Karma.. He was good, but still left some questions. Then there's Stephen Knapp, Dr. Steven Hairfield and many more who write on this. I study it a lot. Have been for about three years and still don't have a concise answer. I've found that the Mahayana's have a much more interest in Karma than the Theravada's. I have this feeling, this question about Karma has been going on for 1000's of years and will continue for 1000's more. I would hope someday to find a teacher that can really, really put some precise understanding on it. But to paraphrase the Buddha, it's a complex subject and difficult to understand and explain.

[khaowong1]

You have access to a weapon and your intention is to stop the slaughter of innocent children.

Do you allow the carnage to continue or do you act to stop it?

Is it correct intention?

People ask monks these hypothetical questions all the time. Ajahn Sumedho answered by saying he didn't know what he would do (because until it happens one doesn't know all the factors and options involved), but he would "take the appropriate action at the time." There is always an option other than killing the gunmen. You could hold the gunman off until help came, you could try and incapacitate him, you could cover the children while they escaped, you could sacrifice yourself. The Buddha said don't kill, so presumably intentional killing never leads towards nibbana.

You never know the reality of a situation. What if your gunman had just shot two kids with tranquilizer darts and you thought they were dead from bullet wounds, so you kill him? What if he was a really nice guy who'd just had a nervous breakdown, or someone had spiked his drink with LSD? An arahant would take a course of action that would benefit everyone involved, including himself and the gunman.

What we do know is that the longer we practise/meditate, the more likely we are to make a decision based on the Dhamma rather than some other reason.

Wow, this really is good. Thanks Camerata

[khaowong1]

What we do know is that the longer we practise/meditate, the more likely we are to make a decision based on the Dhamma rather than some other reason.

Hopefully if we're ever in a situation where we must make a split second life or death decision our mindfulness will be well established enough that we make it with full mindfulness.

Golden words. Let's wish for higher mindfulness.

The way I see it is that rules like "don't kill" are postulates rather than ultimate truths. I can imagine that in a situation of war when under fire I would shoot back to save myself or people around me. I know that there may be some monks who let mosquitoes bite them but my mindfulness allows me to kill them to protect myself from pain and disease that they carry. Maybe I'm not a good Buddhist but looking around at this "Buddhist country" I see lies, cheating, stealing and killing at far higher levels than I would allow myself.

I know a American monk in Pak Chong, who says the same thing about mosquito's.. He studied under Ajahn Chah and has been a monk for 30 years. We feel the same way at our temple in Lopburi. Of course we normally say a little, Annica Vata Sankara, after swatting the little bloodsuckers.

[JurgenG]

As people are talking about "killing" I just want to ask a question.

Basic creatures, living being, are "feeding" on light or other basic chemical. Then when you go up the food chain, all other living creature survives on eating other living creatures. It's a fact of life. Vegetable are living creatures. Birds feed on insect, cats on birds ...it's the way our world has been designed. That's why we call it the food chain.

But when you think about it, it' the way it should be. We can't survive on light or other basic chemicals. We need other living creatures to process this energy, then we eat them. It's the way things have been designed.

How does it fit with Buddhism philosophy ?

Edited February 7, 2011 by JurgenG

[AYJAYDEE]

what evidence do you have that things were "designed"??

As people are talking about "killing" I just want to ask a question.

Basic creatures, living being, are "feeding" on light or other basic chemical. Then when you go up the food chain, all other living creature survives on eating other living creatures. It's a fact of life. Vegetable are living creatures. Birds feed on insect, cats on birds ...it's the way our world has been designed. That's why we call it the food chain.

But when you think about it, it' the way it should be. We can't survive on light or other basic chemicals. We need other living creatures to process this energy, then we eat them. It's the way things have been designed.

How does it fit with Buddhism philosophy ?

[JurgenG]

Maybe designed is not the right word (I don't believe in god if it is your question)

Just let's say it's the way it is, facts.

Is there a purpose in the way things are ? I don't know. It's just the way things are and that's what we have to deal with.

Edited February 7, 2011 by JurgenG

[AYJAYDEE]

a purpose? whose? without an owner , how can there be a purpose?. and im not sure i agree with the staement that plants are creatures?

Maybe designed is not the right word (I don't believe in god if it is your question)

Just let's say it's the way it is, facts.

Is there a purpose in the way things are ? I don't know. It's just the way things are and that's what we have to deal with.

[rockyysdt]

a purpose? whose? without an owner , how can there be a purpose?. and im not sure i agree with the staement that plants are creatures?

Maybe designed is not the right word (I don't believe in god if it is your question)

Just let's say it's the way it is, facts.

Is there a purpose in the way things are ? I don't know. It's just the way things are and that's what we have to deal with.

This might detail what I suspect Jurgen was getting at:

We find ourselves in a world where natural selection and evolution has culminated in a raft of plant and animal species which fit into each other in a food chain.

Generally plants are eaten by herbivorous animals which are then eaten by carnivorous animals and so on up the food chain.

Although man is thought of as being an omnivore our ancestors included sub species which were either exclusively herbivore, some carnivore and others omnivorous.

Although mans gene pool has integrated over millenia, you'll find many individuals living today, who would not thrive on an exclusively vegetarian diet.

I suspect what Jurgen is asking is:

How do we come to terms with Buddhism, living in a world where killing is required to sustain our lives, especially for those whose genes preclude living on an exclusively vegetarian diet.

Not to mention all living animals which find themselves in a world where killing is performed daily for survival.

Edited February 7, 2011 by rockyysdt