Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gem
There are a couple of axioms to consider. Axiom 1: there is virtue concurrent with a universal goodness, and deviation from that sublimity is degenerate. Axiom 2: all people have an inherent instinct for Axiom 1. Axiom 3: A person is an entity with free will and therefore deserves comeuppance.
Whether the first 2 axioms are true of not, they pertain to universal law, and as such, are outside an individual's choice. The third axiom posits free will as the fundamental criteria of individualism, and because free will means individual choice, a human being has just desert with respect to the fixed axioms, 1 and 2. That is the basis of judgment.
|
Hello Gem,
I agree that there is an assumption of recognition of the value of self-aware sentience and our respective lives and existence, more broadly. Of the awareness that my highest good is equally valuable to yours and cannot abrogate yours without misalignment with the good. This foundational assumption of what aligns with or constitutes good is what must clearly be discounted or put aside, in order for misalignment to be intended or perpetrated.
Quote:
|
The entire framework is, therefore, a person knows 'goodness' subjectively, is empowered to chose between good and evil, and is deserving of pleasure or displeasure respectively (indeed, these outcomes would be resultant of inevitable universals). However, being compelled to act by desire for pleasure along with aversion to displeasure is seen as unwholesome since such desire and aversion propagates the purely selfish view that all events are acting on me - and hence I react to experiences with either craving and hatred to lesser or greater degree. However, if the experience affecting me causes me to react - which is also the compulsion to act - that defies the third Axiom, free-will. By extension, if I act to effect pleasure/avoid pain, I re-enter causality, which defies free will. Therefore, what we call free will implies nothing about acting, which is cause and effect in action/reaction unification.
|
So you are saying that our action can be guided by our free will (intent) only so far as it is not mindless or unreflectively driven by craving or aversion? If so, then yes, I would agree with that.
Quote:
In kammic law, will or volition is the cause of the kammic cycle. Will in this sense isn't only the desire to act (effect) and/or be acted upon (affected), that is, to experience sensation, but is also the more sublime notion of 'good-will vs. ill-will'. The latter fundamentally assumes axioms 1 and 2, forming an objective basis for morality in universal law.
Kammic law, however, does not posit an individual with free will. There is no third axiom in this paradigm. The kammic individual, called the santana, does not have any substance of enduring quality or entity - no 'identity' which endures from moment to moment. No one is there to cause an effect nor to be be affected. This resolves the individual causal-free-will dilemma of the typical Western paradigm (albeit at the expense of free will), and therefore, all notions of desert. The kammic paradigm thus does not allow for judgement even though it does involve consequences of sensation.
I'll have to come back later to describe 'cause and effect' (consequence) in context with kamma, because the thought I had for now has ended.
|
I have only the basics of the Pali cannon and Therevada Buddhism and am more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism. But within the eternal change paradigm, I get how one posits as a Buddhist that there is no self and so forth.
However, my own experience is that whilst there is eternal change in each moment, so too is there continuity of individuated consciousness. Kabbalah likewise says the world is recreated in each instant, but it also says that there is continuity (spiritually and thus also temporally and physically) between each instant and all instances up to that moment. So, yes and no. I still see that the essence of who we are -- and especially our core strengths and our core challenges -- remain across lifetimes. Not just the difficult or dark bits but the good as well. Lessons accrue, and actions taken shape the mettle of our individuated consciousness across the long arc of our spiritual growth.
Back to your point...are you saying that due to "no self" there is (or can be) no judgment or discernment for the individual regarding his or her intent, thought, word, or deed? Or do you mean there is (or can be) no judgment of others? Clearly, we seek become self-aware, to right-align intent...deed, and we seek to leave off intending or doing misaligned things. By "no judgment", are you saying from the Buddhist perspective that we note an intent or act is misaligned (i.e., bad in the sense of not good) and stop doing it, but we strive not to attach shame or moral inferiority (etc) to ourselves or others, or similar? If so, I can understand this and it is the right way to proceed, IMO.
Given our self-aware sentience and our ability to reflect and choose (however difficult or poorly informed it may be, LOL), we do take decisions and make judgments -- and must do, as I see it. It is an aspect of being self-aware that we must assess and take ownership for our intent, thought, word, and deed. But I also agree that judgment without equanimity, humility, compassion, and lovingkindness is imbalanced and often quite harmful. As the history of humanity to date has often proven.
Peace & blessings
7L