Atheists and Morals

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, karuṇā is one of the two qualities, along with enlightened wisdom (Sanskrit: prajña), to be cultivated on the bodhisattva path. According to scholar Rupert Gethin, this elevation of karuṇā to the status of prajña is one of the distinguishing factors between the Theravāda arahant ideal and the Mahāyāna bodhisattva ideal:

For the Mahāyāna ... the path to arhatship appears tainted with a residual selfishness since it lacks the motivation of the great compassion (mahākaruṇā) of the bodhisattva, and ultimately the only legitimate way of Buddhist practice is the bodhisattva path.

Throughout the Mahāyāna world, Avalokiteśvara (Chinese: Guan Yin; Japanese: Kannon; Tibetan: Chenrezig) is a bodhisattva who embodies karuṇā.

In the Intermediate section of the Stages of Meditation by Kamalashila, he writes:

>Moved by compassion[karunā], Bodhisattvas take the vow to liberate all sentient beings. Then by overcoming their self-centered outlook, they engage eagerly and continuously in the very difficult practices of accumulating merit and insight. Having entered into this practice, they will certainly complete the collection of merit and insight. Accomplishing the accumulation of merit and insight is like having omniscience itself in the palm of your hand. Therefore, since compassion is the only root of omniscience, you should become familiar with this practice from the very beginning."

>no bataille in that pic
For shame, user.

The four Brahma-vihara are:

Loving-kindness (Pāli: mettā, Sanskrit: maitrī) is active good will towards all;
Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā) results from metta, it is identifying the suffering of others as one's own;
Empathetic joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: muditā): is the feeling of joy because others are happy, even if one did not contribute to it, it is a form of sympathetic joy;
Equanimity (Pāli: upekkhā, Sanskrit: upekṣā): is even-mindedness and serenity, treating everyone impartially.

In the Pali Canon's Nettipakaraṇa (Netti 112) forty-three qualities connected with awakening (tecattālīsa bodhipakkhiyā dhammā) are mentioned which, according to the commentaries, include the aforementioned thirty-seven plus the following 6 contemplations (also found in the suttas, e.g. Saṅgīti Sutta D iii 251)

The contemplation of the three marks of existence:
impermanence (aniccasaññā)
suffering (dukkhasaññā)
non-self (anattasaññā)
abandoning (pahānasaññā)
dispassion (virāgasaññā)
cessation (nirodhasaññā)

I don't do things because I feel they're a part of some universal moral 'code'. I'm really just driven by emotions. Harming other people makes me feel bad, so I don't do it. I also don't want to be harmed, like most people, so I'm happy to live in a society with laws that try to prevent other people who don't feel bad about harming others from doing that. Even people who don't feel bad about harming others tend to prefer this arrangement, since they also don't want to be harmed.

I don't think religious people are any different. They follow religions and religious morals for emotional reasons, because it gives them a sense of belonging or righteousness or comfort or something else. The same is true of any ideology or political or social belief, including my own. Ascribing these emotionally-driven beliefs to some kind of transcendent force of universal ideal, whether theistic or atheistic, both confirms them in the mind of the believer and makes them seem more legitimate to others.

But at the heart of it emotions are the driving force, and I'd say if some divine being appeared before us and really did hand to us an absolutely and undoubtedly true moral code, if we found its tenets revolting enough most of us would reject it because that's what our emotions would make us do.

The Four Right Exertions (cattārimāni sammappadhānāni) are defined with the following traditional phrase:

"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for:
"[i] the sake of the non-arising [anuppādāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
"[ii] ... the sake of the abandonment [pahānāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
"[iii] ... the sake of the arising [uppādāya] of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
"[iv] ... the maintenance [ṭhitiyā], non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen."
This elaboration is attributed to the Buddha in response to the following questions:

"What is right effort?" (SN 45.8, in the context of the Noble Eightfold Path)
"What is the faculty of energy?" (SN 48.10,in the context of the Five Spiritual Faculties)
"What are the four right strivings?" (SN 49.1ff.)

Throughout the Pali Canon, a distinction is made between the fourfold "exertions" (padhāna) and the four "Right Exertions" (sammappadhāna). While similarly named, canonical discourses consistently define these different terms differently, even in the same or adjacent discourses.

The four exertions (cattārimāni padhānāni) are summarized as:

Restraint (saṃvara padhāna) of the senses.
Abandonment (pahāna padhāna) of defilements.
Cultivation (bhāvanā padhāna) of Enlightenment Factors.
Preservation (anurakkhaṇā padhāna) of concentration, for instance, using charnel-ground contemplations.

Hell, the Buddhists even whipped up a Nicene Creed of sorts to unify the sects, with an express doctrine of atheism:

>The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)

>We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)

>We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.

>We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth

>We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).

>We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.

>There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.

>We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

The Buddha identified the threefold training (sikkhā) as training in:

higher virtue (adhisīla-sikkhā)
higher mind (adhicitta-sikkhā)
higher wisdom (adhipaññā-sikkhā)

Threefold Partition Eightfold Path Method of Practice

VIRTUE Right Speech Five Laymen Vows
Right Action
Right Livelihood

MIND Right Effort Dwelling in the four jhanas (meditation)
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration

WISDOM Right View Knowing Four Noble Truths
Right Intention

>dude how come atheist don't go around just being dicks all the time? I know I would be a complete assfuck if god didn't exist lol

based ape laying down the law.

Thanks.
The Dharma exists whether or not I preach it.

My point is this is an atheistic religion which has an arguably more sophisticated ethical and moral base, and the "atheists just wanna reduce us all to the state of rabid dogs" is SUPREMELY misinformed about religions other than KJO Protestantism.

I fucking hate tripfags.

Sounds convoluted. Whoever came up with all this shit must have been autistic.

>&humanities was a mistake

Extremely autistic. But he has a point. I think his particular ethical system is shit, and not quite as rational as he thinks it is.

But he has a point. The idea that atheism means "Lets fuck dogs then eat them!" is ridiculous.

I'm sorry you're triggered by some squiggles in the namefield.

Perhaps a few dozen prostrations to Avalokiteshvara will ease your discomfort.

It only sounds convoluted because it uses alien terminology.

^All this boils down to "prevent bad thoughts from arising", "abandon evils that have already arisen", cultivate/generate mindfulness and self control, and maintenance of the last. Hell you could split that off the Four Noble Truths and get somewhere.

This: is a less complex ethical/moral matrix than you'll see passed off in most administrative/corporate environments.

>countering christian shitposting with buddhist shitposting
Doing God's work there user.

Hmm... your idealism is not far removed from Christianity.
Universal love toward one another. Universal wish for the good of all, even enemies. The commandments are similar to the precepts.
The highest form of love in christianity is altruistic, and I think I heard a buddhist one time say the best exampple of metta is a mother who gives her own life to save her child.

I am but a Vessel of the Dharma of Liberation.

Other than quirks of the Covenant and the meaning of early Hebrew henotheism, yeah, there's a lot of parity. Not much on "love" from the Buddha but does compassion for all things not qualify?

Recently I've been working on
>Right Livelihood (sammā ājīva, S. samyag-ājīva)
>Right Speech (sammā vācā, S. samyag-vāc)
Pretty heckin' hard.

>The commandments are similar to the precepts.

The scriptures say that Maitreya (The next full blown Buddha) will attain bodhi in seven days (which is the minimum period), by virtue of his many lives of preparation for buddhahood similar to those reported in the Jataka tales.

At this time a notable teaching he will start giving is that of the ten non-virtuous deeds (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, abusive speech, idle speech, covetousness, harmful intent and wrong views) and the ten virtuous deeds (the abandonment of: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, abusive speech, idle speech, covetousness, harmful intent and wrong views).

Also fuck this guy. Sagan was a wise mother-fucker. He was too good for this world

what happens after an arahant is reborn? if buddhist teachings are complete why are there higher planes of existence and how do you reach them

there is no reason to follow the judeo-christian morals passed onto me, nor is there a reason not to

Is there any point in being a buddhist if you arent going to go full monk mode?

What if there's an all-powerful dolphin spirit with a giant futa cock who sentences all theists to an eternity of watching Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas?

You don't need to know the law to not be criminal. You can still be moral person if you deny morality as a concept. In fact only inherently amoral being would be in need of guidelines.

>arhat
>reborn
Pick one. An arhat is exempt from Samsara's wheel. Everything beyond "you don't incarnate again" is speculation. Pure Land seems to be a Greco-Zoroastrian convention, given Vajrapani is first depicted as Herakles. Even then, Pure Lands seem to be an initiatory failsafe or an origin-point of emergent Buddhas in a number of Vajrayana and some Mahayana sects.

Of course, why else would there be householder lineages or lay-codes?

The modern atheist (and I'm talking about the typical western rational-humanist ones that talk about rejecting ALL supernatural shit, including Buddhism) are in an interesting conundrum. Their rejection of religion is supposed to be based on logical reasoning (and some would say the pursuit of truth), but this forces them to admit that whatever morality system they personally subscribe to is out of convenience at best. Believing there is some inherent importance or meaning to morals is just magical thinking, then. Dare I say it, perhaps even a religious belief.

Now it's all good and fine if athiests adopt the typical western moral outlook, or even delude themselves with subscriptions to meaningless principles--in a purely mechanistic universe, even shit like the pursuit of truth or even straight up preservation of the species has no real extra-personal worth--I can see why a lot of people think athiests are morally shifty. A morality based on nothing but convenience sounds a like something a psychopath might subscribe to.

Why do theists consider themselves moral when their morality is based on pragmatic reward/punishment thinking?

Well since that dolphin is all powerful it must have a very good reason for what it does. And it must love us as well

>believe in god to stave off hell!!1!
Isn't this coercion/opportunism (depending on the specific mindset)?
I don't see how it could classify as faith. Someone thinking like this ain't gonna get to heaven.

You realize that has literally nothing to do with whether god exists or not, right?

>The modern atheist (and I'm talking about the typical western rational-humanist ones that talk about rejecting ALL supernatural shit, including Buddhism)
No, you're making a strawman so you can pretend to have a point.

>conundrum
Not really. The large majority of atheists have no issues with moral relativism or nihilism.

morality is subjective. You can be atheist and think murder, abortion, seafood, etc. is immoral. If someone thinks killing is moral then it is moral to them. This is why we have laws; to protect the rights and liberties of others,

>A morality based on nothing but convenience sounds a like something a psychopath might subscribe to.
On the other hand, a morality based on the words of an imaginary being seems something a psychotic man might subscribe to.
It's just a question of perceptions.