Hi Mayaka,

If, as you say, all these people have moral values then why is there so much 
suffering and strife in the world? I would say exactly because people have 
moral values, or rather, opposing moral values. For example, on issues such as 
abortion, drug use, age of consent, homosexuality etc who determines what is 
morally correct? Corrupt, rich, white, hypocritical, male politicians do. We 
need laws, but laws shouldn't reflect the moral values of only a very small 
group in society who also have vested interests. Mike. 




----- Original Message ----
From: Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 October, 2008 16:51:30
Subject: [Zen] Re: Aging and Zen


I also define moral as a code of conduct.  It was that explained in a 
post to Jack Master.  There must have been an linguistic error here 
from my side.  And so I'll try again to explain it and be a little 
bit more extensive. What you are explaining here about morality is 
something moralistic. 

Moral is a kind of a double razor and depends how this is used can 
have the effect of moralistic with narrow mind implications based in 
a code of conduct followed strictly to the rule but lacking of real 
insight by the person who follows it and not just that the person who 
is a moralistic usually tries to impose his/her owns views to 
others.  In this case the moral that comes from a moralistic person 
is boring.

But there is a moral with a personal code set of conduct or 
principles, coming from within oneself experience. It's a moral 
developed by oneself alone and that not necesseraly goes with the 
morality of others or society. 

A person with no moral values is a dangerous person.  The Dalai Lama 
has his moral values.  Gandhi had his moral values.  Thich Nhat Hanh 
has his moral values.  Martin Luther King Junior had his moral 
values...All peacemakers of the world have had and have their own 
moral values.  A person without moral values is a person of not being 
trusted.

Thanks for posting
Mayka 

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..> wrote:
>
> Makya,
> 
> My view of morals is the same as Margie's.  I define 'morals' as a 
code of
> conduct.  This code can be very complex - as in Islamic Sharia Law 
or the
> Jewish Talmud; or can be fairly short as in the Old Testament's 10
> Commandments or the Buddhist 5 Precepts; or can be very simple as 
in Jesus'
> teaching to 'Love one another'.  More important to this discussion 
is
> whether morals are thought to be absolute or relative.
> 
> Most religions (all?) believe the discrimination between right and 
wrong and
> therefore codes of conduct are ABSOLUTE.  The code or list from 
which the
> 'correct' action can be derived should apply to ALL situations and 
most
> importantly to ALL people.  What's right or wrong in all situations 
and for
> all people.  This makes it easy to judge the conduct of both 
yourself and
> others.  Since there are a lot of situations and a lot of people, 
most
> religion's codes of conduct are very complex.
> 
> Zen's perspective on the discrimination between right and wrong and
> therefore the selection of a 'correct' action is RELATIVE. 
The 'correct'
> action depends the situation, and most importantly is determined by 
each
> individual for themselves.  What's right for you in a certain 
situation
> might not be right in a different situation.  What's right for you 
in a
> certain situation might not be right for someone else in the same 
situation.
> This makes it unnecessary to judge (after-the-fact) your own 
conduct since
> your actions were completely determined by the situation at the 
time of
> execution;  and it is impossible (or at least useless) to try to 
judge the
> conduct of others.  This also means that zen cannot ascribe to any 
formal
> code of conduct or morals.
> 
> Hope this helps...Bill! 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com] 
On Behalf
> Of roloro1557
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com
> Subject: [Zen] Re: Aging and Zen
> 
> Mayka-
> 
> Morals are just a set of arbitrary rules imposed by society, 
culture,
> religion, etc. They are meaningless. They are empty concepts. And 
they
> differ hugely from culture to culture. This creates nothing but
> endless arguments about whose morals are right and whose are wrong. 
> 
> Real morality is just doing what you know is right, it really is 
that
> simple.
> 
> Margie (roloro1557)
>

    


      

Reply via email to