4 ms·

Not really Buddhist at all. The Buddhist (and Jain, Ajivaka etc.) view is that results don’t matter because the actions themselves don’t matter—they are delusi

Not really Buddhist at all. The Buddhist (and Jain, Ajivaka etc.) view is that results don’t matter because the actions themselves don’t matter—they are delusions. Whereas for “Hindus” (for want of a better word.), actions are of supreme importance. They are divinely ordained. What Krishna Bhagavan is saying is don’t let preoccupation with results paralyze you into inaction. Some historians see the Gita as a rejoinder by the Vedic traditionalist to the quietism of the Shramanic movements. As for Arjunas argument; the need for a pure family line is not that illegitimate children wouldn’t be e.g. heirs but that they would be uneligible to make the offerings (shraddha) to the deified ancestors (Pitrs. The term literally means “fathers” but it includes male and female ancestors.) Deprived of those offerings, the Pitrs would lose their place in Heaven and fall into Hell. Incidentally this lunar fortnight is the season when Hindus perform shraddha. It is my great-grandmothers shraddha today.

kranner 7y ago
> The Buddhist (and Jain, Ajivaka etc.) view is that results don’t matter because the actions themselves don’t matter—they are delusions. That is not the Buddhist view at all. The Buddha himself spoke about skillful action vs non-skillful action. The whole eightfold path / middle way [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path] starts from 'Right View': that our actions have consequences, even after death.
- jaldhar 7y ago
  Certainly it is better to be good than bad nevertheless even good karma has consequences which cause entanglement in samsara. The only way out is to renounce action altogether. The Aryan Eightfold Path is for the Arhat who is at an exalted but lower level than a truly enlightened Buddha. For the Gita, action (as prescribed by dharma) is intrinsically good regardless of its content even if it ends up destroying an entire family in war. That’s the key difference.
  - kranner 7y ago
    IMO that is an incorrect understanding of Buddhism. It is not about renunciation of all action. That's the kind of early Western misunderstanding by people like Nietzsche which has painted Buddhism as rooted in nihilism and inaction. Quoting from The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha translated by Bhikku Bodhi: These are the Buddha's words: > "There is, brahmin, a way in which one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of non-doing.’ For I assert the non-doing of bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct; I assert the non-doing of the numerous kinds of bad unwhole- some deeds. It is in this way that one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of non-doing.’" > "And in what way could one rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of deeds who teaches his Dhamma for the sake of deeds and thereby guides his disciples’? For I assert good bodily, verbal, and mental conduct; I assert the doing of the numerous kinds of wholesome deeds. It is in this way that one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of deeds who teaches his Dhamma for the sake of deeds and thereby guides his disciples.’"
    - jaldhar 7y ago
      And yet even in that quote Shakyamuni calls himself the ascetic Gotama. Becoming a Bhikshu or a renouncer is the entry-level to the Buddhist path. Although in other parts of Asia there were genuine Buddhist lay movements, in India Buddhism was the sangha and only the sangha. If one cannot renounce for some reason then yes it is better to do good than evil in the world but that is clearly the inferior alternative. “Right conduct” is that which brings one closer to non-doing.
      - kranner 7y ago
        > Although in other parts of Asia there were genuine Buddhist lay movements, in India Buddhism was the sangha and only the sangha. I'm not sure this is right. The Buddha himself laid out his rules for householders (the gahatthavatta in the Anguttara Nikaya), which doesn't make sense if there was nothing but the Sangha in his time. > If one cannot renounce for some reason then yes it is better to do good than evil in the world but that is clearly the inferior alternative. “Right conduct” is that which brings one closer to non-doing. Do you have a source for this? Nothing I have read agrees. I have already given my source to the contrary from the Anguttara Nikaya itself.

kranner 7y ago

> The Buddhist (and Jain, Ajivaka etc.) view is that results don’t matter because the actions themselves don’t matter—they are delusions. That is not the Buddhist view at all. The Buddha himself spoke about skillful action vs non-skillful action. The whole eightfold path / middle way [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path] starts from 'Right View': that our actions have consequences, even after death.

jaldhar 7y ago
Certainly it is better to be good than bad nevertheless even good karma has consequences which cause entanglement in samsara. The only way out is to renounce action altogether. The Aryan Eightfold Path is for the Arhat who is at an exalted but lower level than a truly enlightened Buddha. For the Gita, action (as prescribed by dharma) is intrinsically good regardless of its content even if it ends up destroying an entire family in war. That’s the key difference.
- kranner 7y ago
  IMO that is an incorrect understanding of Buddhism. It is not about renunciation of all action. That's the kind of early Western misunderstanding by people like Nietzsche which has painted Buddhism as rooted in nihilism and inaction. Quoting from The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha translated by Bhikku Bodhi: These are the Buddha's words: > "There is, brahmin, a way in which one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of non-doing.’ For I assert the non-doing of bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct; I assert the non-doing of the numerous kinds of bad unwhole- some deeds. It is in this way that one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of non-doing.’" > "And in what way could one rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of deeds who teaches his Dhamma for the sake of deeds and thereby guides his disciples’? For I assert good bodily, verbal, and mental conduct; I assert the doing of the numerous kinds of wholesome deeds. It is in this way that one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a proponent of deeds who teaches his Dhamma for the sake of deeds and thereby guides his disciples.’"
  - jaldhar 7y ago
    And yet even in that quote Shakyamuni calls himself the ascetic Gotama. Becoming a Bhikshu or a renouncer is the entry-level to the Buddhist path. Although in other parts of Asia there were genuine Buddhist lay movements, in India Buddhism was the sangha and only the sangha. If one cannot renounce for some reason then yes it is better to do good than evil in the world but that is clearly the inferior alternative. “Right conduct” is that which brings one closer to non-doing.
    - kranner 7y ago
      > Although in other parts of Asia there were genuine Buddhist lay movements, in India Buddhism was the sangha and only the sangha. I'm not sure this is right. The Buddha himself laid out his rules for householders (the gahatthavatta in the Anguttara Nikaya), which doesn't make sense if there was nothing but the Sangha in his time. > If one cannot renounce for some reason then yes it is better to do good than evil in the world but that is clearly the inferior alternative. “Right conduct” is that which brings one closer to non-doing. Do you have a source for this? Nothing I have read agrees. I have already given my source to the contrary from the Anguttara Nikaya itself.