[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Richard P. Hayes schreef:

>With respect, I think you're wrong about this. Deontology is defined
>simply as the study of moral imperatives. It is not built in to the
>notion of deontology that the imperative is issued by God or President
>Bush or by a body of lawgivers. 
>
Maybe it's just words, but I was thinking of what's described by the 
following quote from Wikipedia:
*'deontology* is the view that morality either forbids or permits 
actions, which is done through moral norms 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28philosophy%29>. For example, a 
deontological moral theory might hold that lying is wrong, even if it 
produces good consequences. Historically, the most influential 
deontological theory of morality was developed by the German philosopher 
Immanuel Kant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant>, who 
introduced the idea of the categorical imperative 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative>. '

>>Sin is not just becoming conscious of one limitations, but a feeling of
>>guilt because one thinks of oneself as being responsible for them. 
>>    
>>
>
>Again, I think you are seeing this in too narrow a way. 
>
The Internet quick search dictionary gave this result:
' A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

   1. _/Theology./_
         1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
         2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such
            disobedience.
   2. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong. '


My reading of Foucault and Hadot convinced me that the Greeks were not 
familiar with the concept of sin which developed in Christendom and 
became even hereditary because of St. Paul. The word makes me always 
think of angels with flaming swords. I think that eating the apple was 
more then just missing the mark or damage. I think we've just each 
another concept in mind. I guess I find neurotic guilt much more common 
then you.

>>From what I have read of Kierkegaard, he had completely mastered the art
>of cultivating neurotic guilt. But there are much more healthy ways of
>looking at sin (whether the Greek, the Christian or the Buddhist
>variety) than Kierkegaard's.
>  
>
I can remember holy Ohle Nydall, who used to stay in my apartment a 
couple of times, shouting through the house 'I have to repent, because 
I've sinned' because he had to keep a kind of health diet. I struck me 
because he was for many the example of a Western teacher of Tibetan 
Buddhism who had it made. May it's something Danish.

> But my
>point is that having a sense of being related to God is already a very
>big step away from Narcissism. 
>
I'm not that optimistic about relationships with God. Some people seem 
to benefit from it but it seems to me that for the greater part God is 
just a kind of cosmic hollow mirror. But knowing your involvement with 
unitarism, I can understand that we here must agree to disagree.

erik