Read article - Dickinson Blogs

More documents

Recommendations

Info

further karmic suffering for oneself in the future, and contributes to more unwholesome states arising and to liberating wisdom being weakened. "Wholesome" actions have the opposite characteristics. They arise from a state of mind which is virtuous, as judged by the action's motive and the agent's knowledge of likely harm or benefit, its contribution to the improvement of the character of the person who does it, and thus its assistance in moving a person along the path to Nirvana. Using the above criteria, one list of what is "unwholesome" specifies: i) onslaught on living beings, ii) taking what is not given, iii) sensual misconduct, iv) lying speech, v) back-biting speech, vi) harsh speech, vii) empty gossip, viii) covetousness (//abhijjhaa//), ix) ill-will (//byaapaada//), and x) wrong view (particularly the view that one should not be held responsible for ones actions, that actions matter). That is, wrong action of body (i-iii), speech (iv)-vii) and mind (viii-x). What is wholesome is restraint (//verama.nii//) from each of these (M.I.47). Such unwholesome actions are said to be "of unwholesome will (//akusala-sa~ncetanika//), yielding //dukkha//, ripening in //dukkha//" (A.V.292). Of these actions, only those relating to body and speech would normally be seen as coming under the purview of the English words "morality" or "ethics"; indeed the Pali word //siila//, or "moral virtue", has a similar range. That which is "wholesome" or "unwholesome", then, goes beyond purely moral considerations to include states of mind, which may have no direct effect on other people. All the factors of the Eightfold Path, for example, are seen as "wholesome". INTENTION, KNOWLEDGE AND DEGREES OF UNWHOLESOMENESS IN ACTIONS The degree of unwholesomeness of an action is seen to vary according to the degree and nature of the volition/intention (//cetanaa//) behind the action, and the degree of knowledge (of various kinds) relating to it. An action becomes more unwholesome as the force of the volition behind it increases, for this leaves a greater karmic "trace" on the mind. The Theravaadin commentator Buddhaghosa discusses the unwholesome act of "onslaught on living beings" as follows: "Onslaught on living beings" is, as regards a living being Harvey.txt Page:144 that one perceives as living, the will to kill it, expressed through body or speech, occasioning an attack which cuts off its life-faculty. That action, in regard to those without good qualities (//gu.na//)-animals etc.--is of lesser fault when they are small, greater fault when they have a large physical frame. Why? Because of the greater effort involved; and even where the effort is the same, due to the greater substance of animal. In regard to those with good qualities-humans etc.--the action is of lesser fault when they are of few good qualities, greater fault when they are of many good qualities. But when size or good qualities are equal, the fault of the action is in proportion to the intensity of the mental defilements and of the attack. Five factors are involved: a living being, the actual perceiving of a living being, a thought of killing, the attack, and death as a result of it. There are six methods: with one's own hand, by instigation, by missiles, by contrivance (trap or poison), by sorcery, by psychic power (M.A.I.198). [2] Here, one can see that an act is the worse according to the strength and perversity of the volition motivating and accompanying it. To kill a virtuous human, or http://www.buddhistethics.org/2/harvey.txt 4 of 11 4/5/2010 12:17 PM
a respect-worthy one such as a parent is particularly perverse (D.I.85; Vibh.378), just as giving to a virtuous person is particularly good (A.IV.237-78). That killing in a state of intense defilement is worse, would mean that premeditated killing, from a mix of greed, resentment and also delusion, would be very bad. Other factors which are seen to affect the degree of unwholesomeness of an action are the degree of both intention and knowledge involved, and one can outline five levels of unwholesomeness accordingly: i) An action performed without intending to do that particular action, for example accidentally treading on an insect, without any thought of harming, or doing something when one is insane. Such an action is not seen as unwholesome, blameworthy or as generating any bad karmic results. This can be seen from the fact that it is said that to accidentally crush worms while crushing sugar cane for its juice is not blameable (Miln.166) though to deliberately kill any living being is morally blameable. Moreover, there is no offence for a monk if he kills a living being unintentionally, not realising that his actions would harm a living being (Vin.IV.125). Likewise, in the case of the monastic offence--normally entailing defeat in the monastic life--of deliberately killing a human, "there is no offence if it was unintentional, if he did not know, if he were not meaning death, if he was out of his mind..." (Vin.III.78; cf.Vin.II.91). Again, a monk who breaks a monastic rule when mad does not commit an offence (Vin.IV.125). What, though, of an act which is not intended to harm any being, but is such that one knows, or has strong reasons to expect, that a being or beings will be harmed? For example, crushing the sugar cane when one knows, or strongly suspects, that it contains worms? Or driving a car on a hot day when it is very likely that many insects will be killed? Are these cases of a) culpable carelessness, or b) simply a lack of extra-mile altruism? ii) If one knows that a certain kind of action is evil, but does it Harvey.txt Page:145 when one is not in full control of oneself, for example when drunk or impassioned. This is a lesser evil than if one did it with full knowledge of what one was doing, and with full intention. The //Milindapa~nha// discusses the case of a Jaataka story (no.433, J.III.514-19) where the Bodhisattva, as an ascetic, sacrifices (or almost does?) many animals when a king says that he can marry his beautiful daughter if he does so (Miln.219-21). The //Milindapa~nha// says that this was an action done when he was "out of his mind (//visa~n~ninaa//) with passion, not when he was thinking of what he was doing (//sacetanena//)". The action was not in accordance with his nature for he was "unhinged, impassioned. It was when he was out of his mind, thoroughly confused and agitated that, with thoughts confused, in a turmoil and disturbed", like a madman. Thus it is said that "Evil done by one who is unhinged...is not of great blame here and now, nor is it so in respect of its ripening in a future state". Thus, full insanity excuses an act, while a temporary "unhinged" state, from passion or drink, means that there is little moral blame or karmic effect; getting into such a state can be held to be blameworthy, though. iii) If one does an evil action when one is unclear or mistaken about the object affected by the action. http://www.buddhistethics.org/2/harvey.txt 5 of 11 4/5/2010 12:17 PM
Page 1 and 2: Harvey.txt Page:140 JOURNAL OF BUDD
Page 3: The opposites of these are the thre
Page 7 and 8: what the Buddha calls "stumbling bl
Page 9 and 10: PRECEPT-TAKING AND MORALITY This ra
Page 11: cf. Khp.A.28-31. Harvey.txt Page:15

Read article - Dickinson Blogs

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?