Ethics needs a foundation, and that is provided by the study of meta-ethics. The kinds of questions posed by meta-ethics are: “What is good? What is evil? What is right? What is wrong?” Meta-ethics is concerned with this ground of ethics.
In Buddhist meta-ethics, the ground of reality transcends good and evil, right and wrong. If God is to be identified only with the good, we cannot say that God is the ground of being.
When we talk about good we’re talking about behaviors and actions that lead to what we call good. Good is just a designation. It doesn’t have an absolute value. The same is true of evil. We all know that without the mud we can’t grow lotuses. Therefore to wish to only have lotuses and eliminate the mud isn’t very intelligent. Once we remove all the mud no more lotuses will be possible. The view of good and evil in Buddhism is that they are relative concepts. This is the meta-ethics of Buddhism. The nature of reality goes beyond all ideas of right and wrong. Ideas of right and wrong only have relative value. There are two domains: the domain of nature and the domain of human activity. In the domain of human activity we have established what is right, what is wrong, what is good, and what is bad. These ideas have a practical application and they are purely relative. We can’t make these relative values into something absolute and fixed. As far as the ultimate dimension or nirvana is concerned there is no more right, wrong, good and bad. Good and evil are relative ideas like above and below. When we say above and below we have to ask above and below what? If we’re in France we say that our feet are below and our head is above. Someone looking from Vietnam would say that our head is below our feet. What we call above would be called below by people on the other side of the world. We can’t apply the idea of above and below to the universe, although we can apply it to where we are standing.
It’s incorrect to say that the Dharmakaya—the teaching of the Buddha—is pure; but it’s also incorrect to say that it’s impure. Someone asked the eminent Vietnamese Zen master Tue Trung: “What is the purified Dharmakaya?” He replied: “Buffalo dung and cow urine.” That was to help people to not be caught in ideas of purity and defilement. Theologians need to learn more about this, so they can let go of old ideas and so their ideas can include the findings of modern science. Meta-ethics is a very important field of study in our own time, because it can function as the foundation for all ethical theories. Meta-ethics studies and questions the meaning and nature of ethical statements, terms, and evaluations, as well as the assumptions, judgments, and attitudes we make about them. Therefore semantics is an important part of meta-ethics. For example if we’re discussing whether God exists or not, we can’t get anywhere if we haven’t agreed on what is meant by God. We have the word God but everyone understands the word in a different way. We talk about right and wrong, but what is the meaning of the words “right” and “wrong”? And how do we determine what is right or wrong, good or bad? It’s like when we say that we practice in order to realize nirvana. Someone may ask us, “What do you mean by nirvana?” Then you have to look to see if you’ve been entertaining an idea of nirvana that may have nothing to do with reality.
In Buddhist meta-ethics, the ground of reality transcends good and evil, right and wrong. If God is to be identified only with the good, we cannot say that God is the ground of being.
When we talk about good we’re talking about behaviors and actions that lead to what we call good. Good is just a designation. It doesn’t have an absolute value. The same is true of evil. We all know that without the mud we can’t grow lotuses. Therefore to wish to only have lotuses and eliminate the mud isn’t very intelligent. Once we remove all the mud no more lotuses will be possible. The view of good and evil in Buddhism is that they are relative concepts. This is the meta-ethics of Buddhism. The nature of reality goes beyond all ideas of right and wrong. Ideas of right and wrong only have relative value. There are two domains: the domain of nature and the domain of human activity. In the domain of human activity we have established what is right, what is wrong, what is good, and what is bad. These ideas have a practical application and they are purely relative. We can’t make these relative values into something absolute and fixed. As far as the ultimate dimension or nirvana is concerned there is no more right, wrong, good and bad. Good and evil are relative ideas like above and below. When we say above and below we have to ask above and below what? If we’re in France we say that our feet are below and our head is above. Someone looking from Vietnam would say that our head is below our feet. What we call above would be called below by people on the other side of the world. We can’t apply the idea of above and below to the universe, although we can apply it to where we are standing.
It’s incorrect to say that the Dharmakaya—the teaching of the Buddha—is pure; but it’s also incorrect to say that it’s impure. Someone asked the eminent Vietnamese Zen master Tue Trung: “What is the purified Dharmakaya?” He replied: “Buffalo dung and cow urine.” That was to help people to not be caught in ideas of purity and defilement. Theologians need to learn more about this, so they can let go of old ideas and so their ideas can include the findings of modern science. Meta-ethics is a very important field of study in our own time, because it can function as the foundation for all ethical theories. Meta-ethics studies and questions the meaning and nature of ethical statements, terms, and evaluations, as well as the assumptions, judgments, and attitudes we make about them. Therefore semantics is an important part of meta-ethics. For example if we’re discussing whether God exists or not, we can’t get anywhere if we haven’t agreed on what is meant by God. We have the word God but everyone understands the word in a different way. We talk about right and wrong, but what is the meaning of the words “right” and “wrong”? And how do we determine what is right or wrong, good or bad? It’s like when we say that we practice in order to realize nirvana. Someone may ask us, “What do you mean by nirvana?” Then you have to look to see if you’ve been entertaining an idea of nirvana that may have nothing to do with reality.
Comments
Post a Comment