3 ms·

Forgive me, English is not my first language so at times I struggle finding the right word for it. The pali word is "sila", the closest translation is morals.

Forgive me, English is not my first language so at times I struggle finding the right word for it. The pali word is "sila", the closest translation is morals. To be deficient in sila is to be deficient in morals, was my thought process. One example is do no harm, or avoid lying. If all your daily life is filled with causing harm, and deceit, then it will be filled with chaos and end up making it harder for you to make progress in awakening or do good stuff. This is one interpretation of karma (cause and effect). There's a whole other philosophical side to it that I think about, outside of the Buddhist context. That certain choices or circumstances in life end up reducing your moral agency in this world. People can be born under unsafe, and unkind environments, so sometimes it becomes harder to be generous and kind, as if there was less wiggle room in your ability to act as a moral agent. One of the things Buddhism tries to address is removing the layers of conditioning in your mind and concept of self, to give you more freedom.

davesque 4y ago
Thanks for your additional thoughts on this. Appreciate the comments.
fendy3002 4y ago
tbf it's not your English that's lacking. It's just that translation from Buddhist term (pali) to English (or other language) is hard or they have no direct translation. Dukkha is one of them.
- cyberpunk 4y ago
  I think ethics is closer than Morals in this case
  - skissane 4y ago
    Well, that's a big dispute – are "ethics" and "morals" synonyms, or do they differ in meaning? The traditional answer: they are synonyms. English (and many other European languages too) often has pairs of words with interchangeable meanings, one of which comes from Greek ("ethics"), the other from Latin ("morals"). The traditional identification of the two terms comes from the fact that when Cicero sought to explain the ancient Greek philosophical tradition on ethikos (ἠθικός) in Latin, he coined the Latin word moralis to translate that Greek term – hence, the Western philosophical tradition (and the Western intellectual tradition more broadly) begins by treating the two terms as essentially synonymous – the idea that there is some difference between them did not arise until over a millennium later Most popular contemporary answer: they are two different things. However, while many (maybe even most) people agree they are two different things, there is much less agreement on what exactly is the difference between them – some say one is religious and the other secular; some say one is personal and the other public (confusingly, some say morality is the personal one and ethics is the public one, others say the opposite); some say one is about detailed rules and the other is about principles; etc. (I'd also note you can find innumerable web pages claiming to explain the distinction – but if you read them carefully, they often contradict each other in various ways, and rarely do they cite any kind of authoritative source in support of their claims.) I think a large part of what has happened here, is "morality" has picked up a lot of connotations of (Judaeo-Christian) religious and social conservatism, of which "ethics" remains relatively free. Since for many people (especially secular/progressive people), "ethics" has positive connotations, "morality" rather less positive ones, people assume there must be some difference in denotation as well. But, while that assumption is widespread, there is far less agreement on what exactly that difference in denotation is. Indeed, I think attempts to give them different definitions are somewhat of a retcon. Personally, I just stick to the traditional answer. My impression, is that among professional philosophers (especially of the analytic tradition), the traditional answer is the more popular one [0]. "Moral philosophy" and "ethics" (in the sense of the philosophical discipline) are two different names for the same thing, albeit the former name sounds a little old-fashioned, the later a bit more contemporary. [0] To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – "The term ‘morality’ as used in this entry will not be distinguished from ‘ethics.’" – https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/ – the same entry also notes, that while some philosophers have attempted to distinguish the two terms, including even such illustrious figures as Kant and Hegel, there is a lack of consensus among philosophers who believe them to be distinct as to what the distinction actually is.
    - cyberpunk 4y ago
      You know, I’ve never really thought much about the difference. In my head, morals usually equates to acting within some set of conduct guidelines laid out by society or religion. Ethics, is the same but instead of not (e.g) just shooting someone because it says not to in some book or law, I do it because I somehow know it’s harmful. That’s a pretty awful explanation. I guess I mean, I somehow draw the distinction between these terms based on where these “seem” to come from. I think most people have the intuitive ethics, morality is something we pick up. Of course, that’s probably complete nonsense ;)
heavenlyblue 4y ago
Are rent controls a good policy or not? Are unrestricted free markets a good thing or not? Is killing a tiger good when the tiger is about to each your child? Morals are easy (and clear) once you don't have to deal with the real world.
- emptysongglass 4y ago
  That's not what the Buddha professed to teach. He taught the illness (dukkha) and the cure for that illness (the eightfold path). A basic framework of ethics girds the path. Almost no one would argue with them: no lying, cheating on your spouse, killing, etc. A fundamental misapprehension of these teachings is what gets people wound up. The Buddha's teachings are not going to answer if rent controls are good policy or not because the world in which the laity live is a stew for the perpetuation of dukkha. Certainly not lying, cheating or killing are all good principles for living a life of less dukkha but given the Buddha's observations that samsara has no beginning or end spending your life on answering if rent controls are good policy or not is doomed to be unlasting and unsatisfactory. The dhamma is not to be realized through discursive thinking alone. It must be directly experienced. The Buddha invites anyone to practice the teachings and discover for themselves if they are bullshit or not. So sit and examine or don't. Throwing the teachings under the bus because people want to pull out the part they like and dump the rest is wrong practice and the Buddha was painstakingly clear on this.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    > Almost no one would argue with them: no lying, cheating on your spouse, killing, etc. None of these are sins in their absolute sense though, and this is what I am underlining, that you can't possibly create absolutist ethics in any way. Philosophy had created a lot of points of view on this, but none of them managed to create a consistent worldview that would work for any occasion.
    - emptysongglass 4y ago
      Absolute sense meaning what? When engaged with they cause suffering. If you turn your mind inward one sees engaging with these acts almost instantaneously harms the doer as the victim. This is not complicated. Trying to objectify these acts as anything but harmful is not helpful to you or anyone else. The next time you harm someone look closely at yourself first and observe the tumult of feelings that follow. Observing them closely, directly experience their result. Then you can know for yourself what the Buddha taught: evergreen wisdom that will remain applicable so long as people suffer anywhere. We are not beings of pure intellect. That is complete folly. The mind is real, yes, but so is harm, pain, suffering, and craving. These are not abstract concepts. They can be directly known by anyone living. We must engage with the human faculties we are given and use them to understand our condition and the way leading out.
darkerside 4y ago
Your message came through just fine for me in your first post. I wouldn't be too self conscious about it. But, as another poster pointed out, it's true that morals carry a religious connotation.

davesque 4y ago

Thanks for your additional thoughts on this. Appreciate the comments.

fendy3002 4y ago

tbf it's not your English that's lacking. It's just that translation from Buddhist term (pali) to English (or other language) is hard or they have no direct translation. Dukkha is one of them.

cyberpunk 4y ago
I think ethics is closer than Morals in this case
- skissane 4y ago
  Well, that's a big dispute – are "ethics" and "morals" synonyms, or do they differ in meaning? The traditional answer: they are synonyms. English (and many other European languages too) often has pairs of words with interchangeable meanings, one of which comes from Greek ("ethics"), the other from Latin ("morals"). The traditional identification of the two terms comes from the fact that when Cicero sought to explain the ancient Greek philosophical tradition on ethikos (ἠθικός) in Latin, he coined the Latin word moralis to translate that Greek term – hence, the Western philosophical tradition (and the Western intellectual tradition more broadly) begins by treating the two terms as essentially synonymous – the idea that there is some difference between them did not arise until over a millennium later Most popular contemporary answer: they are two different things. However, while many (maybe even most) people agree they are two different things, there is much less agreement on what exactly is the difference between them – some say one is religious and the other secular; some say one is personal and the other public (confusingly, some say morality is the personal one and ethics is the public one, others say the opposite); some say one is about detailed rules and the other is about principles; etc. (I'd also note you can find innumerable web pages claiming to explain the distinction – but if you read them carefully, they often contradict each other in various ways, and rarely do they cite any kind of authoritative source in support of their claims.) I think a large part of what has happened here, is "morality" has picked up a lot of connotations of (Judaeo-Christian) religious and social conservatism, of which "ethics" remains relatively free. Since for many people (especially secular/progressive people), "ethics" has positive connotations, "morality" rather less positive ones, people assume there must be some difference in denotation as well. But, while that assumption is widespread, there is far less agreement on what exactly that difference in denotation is. Indeed, I think attempts to give them different definitions are somewhat of a retcon. Personally, I just stick to the traditional answer. My impression, is that among professional philosophers (especially of the analytic tradition), the traditional answer is the more popular one [0]. "Moral philosophy" and "ethics" (in the sense of the philosophical discipline) are two different names for the same thing, albeit the former name sounds a little old-fashioned, the later a bit more contemporary. [0] To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – "The term ‘morality’ as used in this entry will not be distinguished from ‘ethics.’" – https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/ – the same entry also notes, that while some philosophers have attempted to distinguish the two terms, including even such illustrious figures as Kant and Hegel, there is a lack of consensus among philosophers who believe them to be distinct as to what the distinction actually is.
  - cyberpunk 4y ago
    You know, I’ve never really thought much about the difference. In my head, morals usually equates to acting within some set of conduct guidelines laid out by society or religion. Ethics, is the same but instead of not (e.g) just shooting someone because it says not to in some book or law, I do it because I somehow know it’s harmful. That’s a pretty awful explanation. I guess I mean, I somehow draw the distinction between these terms based on where these “seem” to come from. I think most people have the intuitive ethics, morality is something we pick up. Of course, that’s probably complete nonsense ;)

heavenlyblue 4y ago

Are rent controls a good policy or not? Are unrestricted free markets a good thing or not? Is killing a tiger good when the tiger is about to each your child? Morals are easy (and clear) once you don't have to deal with the real world.

emptysongglass 4y ago
That's not what the Buddha professed to teach. He taught the illness (dukkha) and the cure for that illness (the eightfold path). A basic framework of ethics girds the path. Almost no one would argue with them: no lying, cheating on your spouse, killing, etc. A fundamental misapprehension of these teachings is what gets people wound up. The Buddha's teachings are not going to answer if rent controls are good policy or not because the world in which the laity live is a stew for the perpetuation of dukkha. Certainly not lying, cheating or killing are all good principles for living a life of less dukkha but given the Buddha's observations that samsara has no beginning or end spending your life on answering if rent controls are good policy or not is doomed to be unlasting and unsatisfactory. The dhamma is not to be realized through discursive thinking alone. It must be directly experienced. The Buddha invites anyone to practice the teachings and discover for themselves if they are bullshit or not. So sit and examine or don't. Throwing the teachings under the bus because people want to pull out the part they like and dump the rest is wrong practice and the Buddha was painstakingly clear on this.
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  > Almost no one would argue with them: no lying, cheating on your spouse, killing, etc. None of these are sins in their absolute sense though, and this is what I am underlining, that you can't possibly create absolutist ethics in any way. Philosophy had created a lot of points of view on this, but none of them managed to create a consistent worldview that would work for any occasion.
  - emptysongglass 4y ago
    Absolute sense meaning what? When engaged with they cause suffering. If you turn your mind inward one sees engaging with these acts almost instantaneously harms the doer as the victim. This is not complicated. Trying to objectify these acts as anything but harmful is not helpful to you or anyone else. The next time you harm someone look closely at yourself first and observe the tumult of feelings that follow. Observing them closely, directly experience their result. Then you can know for yourself what the Buddha taught: evergreen wisdom that will remain applicable so long as people suffer anywhere. We are not beings of pure intellect. That is complete folly. The mind is real, yes, but so is harm, pain, suffering, and craving. These are not abstract concepts. They can be directly known by anyone living. We must engage with the human faculties we are given and use them to understand our condition and the way leading out.

darkerside 4y ago

Your message came through just fine for me in your first post. I wouldn't be too self conscious about it. But, as another poster pointed out, it's true that morals carry a religious connotation.