system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by otiosedodge »

Hello Everyone,

Nice to virtually meet you all. I've just found this forum, and I'm quite excited about it!

I'll jump right in: it's only recently that I've realized the ultimate nature of reality. This discovery is obviously a shatteringly beautiful experience, and now my mission is to share it with as many people as possible. With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock. Other very important elements would be emotions, since they're universal, and we all seek happiness (though the vast majority of us don't know what real happiness is).

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

Best,
Otiose
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by skipair »

Yes, I've thought about this a lot. Since there is no logical reason to do anything in particular (logical as in taking ultimate reality as a reference), I choose to do what I think will bring me long term happiness. I try to cultivate a life that will make me feel great tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, etc.

For me that means taking care of myself with consistent exercise, good diet, socializing, sex, travel, and gaining worldly knowledge, and it also means serving the world, because not only does it makes sense to create a better environment for purely selfish reasons, but it feels good to help too.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by David Quinn »

otiosedodge wrote:Hello Everyone,

Nice to virtually meet you all. I've just found this forum, and I'm quite excited about it!

I'll jump right in: it's only recently that I've realized the ultimate nature of reality. This discovery is obviously a shatteringly beautiful experience, and now my mission is to share it with as many people as possible. With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock. Other very important elements would be emotions, since they're universal, and we all seek happiness (though the vast majority of us don't know what real happiness is).

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

Best,
Otiose
Hi Otiose,

Before you do anything else, you would want to make sure that your "fundamental insight" is indeed fundamental (and not just, say, an unusual altered state of consciousness) and that your understanding of things is advanced and mature enough that you can guide people properly. Otherwise, you could end up misleading people and doing them far more harm than good.

When a person really does have genuine insight into the nature of reality, he automatically understands the spiritual path and the ethical side of things as well. The two always go together. In his enlightenment, he not only comes to understand the nature of reality, but also the core dynamics of what it takes to reach enlightenment, what promotes it, what hinders it, and so on. As such, your coming on here and asking for help in these matters isn't a good sign.

I don't want to belittle your achievement here. No doubt you've had an amazing experience, a rare experience, one that has blown your mind. But how deep was it, really? Was it truly a bedrock realization, or just a beginner's insight? If you value truth, then it is important to not become too attached to your insight, but to challenge it, to question its validity, to understand it in its proper context, and, if possible, to try and go beyond it to even greater realms of insight.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by David Quinn »

skipair wrote:Yes, I've thought about this a lot. Since there is no logical reason to do anything in particular (logical as in taking ultimate reality as a reference), I choose to do what I think will bring me long term happiness. I try to cultivate a life that will make me feel great tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, etc.

For me that means taking care of myself with consistent exercise, good diet, socializing, sex, travel, and gaining worldly knowledge, and it also means serving the world, because not only does it makes sense to create a better environment for purely selfish reasons, but it feels good to help too.
Alternatively, the person who places consciousness of Truth as the core reference point (as opposed to long-term happiness) would develop an entirely different set of values and follow an entirely different path. As far as ethics is concerned, everything hinges on one's core value in life.

-
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by skipair »

Very true.
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by otiosedodge »

David Quinn wrote: Hi Otiose,

Before you do anything else, you would want to make sure that your "fundamental insight" is indeed fundamental (and not just, say, an unusual altered state of consciousness) and that your understanding of things is advanced and mature enough that you can guide people properly. Otherwise, you could end up misleading people and doing them far more harm than good.

When a person really does have genuine insight into the nature of reality, he automatically understands the spiritual path and the ethical side of things as well. The two always go together. In his enlightenment, he not only comes to understand the nature of reality, but also the core dynamics of what it takes to reach enlightenment, what promotes it, what hinders it, and so on. As such, your coming on here and asking for help in these matters isn't a good sign.

I don't want to belittle your achievement here. No doubt you've had an amazing experience, a rare experience, one that has blown your mind. But how deep was it, really? Was it truly a bedrock realization, or just a beginner's insight? If you value truth, then it is important to not become too attached to your insight, but to challenge it, to question its validity, to understand it in its proper context, and, if possible, to try and go beyond it to even greater realms of insight.

-
Hi David,

I tested my insight for a long time, and I think and feel that it's rock-solid. It comes down to the fact that every'thing' (including the self) is merely labeled, there there's only 'isness' (I put it in quotes because it's obviously a concept in this context, and this merely shows the limitations of language), and that I am totally free already because of these first two insights.

My question revolves around how to help others in general, and whether the best way to help them is to build a system of ethics based on my insight. As an abstract system (as opposed to something more practical), I think it requires theory-building, something more general, which doesn't come as easily as meeting a person on the street and knowing how to help them. Is this clearer?

Best
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Blair »

otiosedodge wrote: With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but its already been done, it's called The Ten Commandments.
User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Anders Schlander »

hm.... well..

are you intending your system to be a kind of 'map' for other people?

it's hard to systemize such a map leading to insights because people respond to different things, and concepts can make people more bewildered and lost within their thoughts.

if what you've started with as your foundation is sound, by working forwards you will grasp it clearer and be able to best live up to your ethics, or if your foundation is un-sound, that you might both be going in prematurely and into the wrong path with this. Even if it turns out, that there are problems, with your insight perhaps, your realization is already a very large mental change, one that you should take as part of a developing.

On another note, an abstract system might help find what best suits the individual, but if you meet somebody on the street, its going to be even harder to judge the person and figure out what to do. If you knew how to help somebody on the street, you wouldn't need to come up with a system, would you?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

otiosedodge wrote:I tested my insight for a long time, and I think and feel that it's rock-solid. It comes down to the fact that every'thing' (including the self) is merely labeled, there there's only 'isness' (I put it in quotes because it's obviously a concept in this context, and this merely shows the limitations of language), and that I am totally free already because of these first two insights.

My question revolves around how to help others in general, and whether the best way to help them is to build a system of ethics based on my insight. As an abstract system (as opposed to something more practical), I think it requires theory-building, something more general, which doesn't come as easily as meeting a person on the street and knowing how to help them. Is this clearer?
If you needed a system of ethics to attain your insights/s, e.g. will to truth, then use that. If you didn't, then you shouldn't need one to help others. Getting to the other shore is all that matters, the boat is expedient.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

prince wrote:
otiosedodge wrote: With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but its already been done, it's called The Ten Commandments.
Irrationalities in the Ten Commandments:
- God is not defined. Muslims, Jews and Christians of all denominations argue amongst each other that only their God is the true God, and that they are the ones who are not worshipping false Gods. They all have the same basic set of commandments, laughably.
- It doesn't say idols can't be made of the God that isn't defined, so idols can indeed be made of anything, so long as the idol is called God. Therefore, the commandment is internally contradictory.
- It doesn't say what wrongful use of God's name is so any speech might be wrongful use.
- There is no inherent Sabbath, and any day could be called Sabbath (since any day can be the seventh), so one could be breaking the rule if one does any work at all. Similarly, work is not defined, so even if one made up a 7th day, one wouldn't know when one is dishonouring a Sabbath or not.
- It doesn't define "honour", so one doesn't know when one is honouring a parent or not. Nor what a parent is (is God a parent? are one's causes one's parents?).
- Murdering or killing is not defined, because life is not defined, nor what kinds of life are not to be murdered.
- Stealing is not defined, because the dynamics of possession and selfhood are not defined.
- Bearing false witness against a neighbour is unclear, because it does not say from whose perspective something is false, nor what a neighbour is.
- Coveting a neighbour's possessions is not defined, for the same reason mentioned previously.

The list is vague and subjectively interpreted, so it is impossible to consider that a God has invented them for humans. Everyone will make up their own fiction of God, and then say their own commandments are the right ones.

No, one doesn't need to create a system of ethics. All one need do is value the truth, and let everything else follow.

.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Blair »

Oh Kelly don't you think of yourself as such a clever little bird.

The commandments are from the future, placed when time refluxed and the expansion was reversed.

I've broken all those commands, and I'm going to hell.
User avatar
uncledote
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 am
Location: UK

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by uncledote »

Kelly Jones wrote:[


No, one doesn't need to create a system of ethics. All one need do is value the truth, and let everything else follow.

.
How would you define 'the truth'?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

By what could I compare it, in order to define it?

Truth is everything, yet is only apparent to the rational person. If you need more information, reason is based on the certainty of identity. An expression of that certainty is "there is always something".

.
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by otiosedodge »

Anders Schlander wrote:hm.... well..

are you intending your system to be a kind of 'map' for other people?

it's hard to systemize such a map leading to insights because people respond to different things, and concepts can make people more bewildered and lost within their thoughts.

if what you've started with as your foundation is sound, by working forwards you will grasp it clearer and be able to best live up to your ethics, or if your foundation is un-sound, that you might both be going in prematurely and into the wrong path with this. Even if it turns out, that there are problems, with your insight perhaps, your realization is already a very large mental change, one that you should take as part of a developing.

On another note, an abstract system might help find what best suits the individual, but if you meet somebody on the street, its going to be even harder to judge the person and figure out what to do. If you knew how to help somebody on the street, you wouldn't need to come up with a system, would you?
Hi Anders,

I intend for the ethical system to be derived from the so-called fundamental insight. That is, once people have realized that this insight is solid, then my idea would be explore the implications of this insight for life in the modern world. Things like consumption habits, choice of livelihood, and day-to-day conduct would all be fair game. In a perfect world, this system would amount to a declaration of human values, but one that is empirically based, ie, based on the fundamental insight, as opposed to declarations of human values that may largely be correct, but not empirically based (eg, the Dalai Lama's 'Ethics for the New Millennium' or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

I think that I've already made the biggest leap in my development by securing this insight, and I don't see how it would be wrong to start helping others now. Unless, of course, you can provide me with a good reason not to.

I think that helping someone on the street, given the appropriate parameters, is easier than deciding, for example, how much of your salary to donate to appropriate charities. An abstract system, in my opinion, may help people in making more abstract decisions about morality.

Best
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by otiosedodge »

Kelly Jones wrote:
prince wrote:
otiosedodge wrote: With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but its already been done, it's called The Ten Commandments.
Irrationalities in the Ten Commandments:
- God is not defined. Muslims, Jews and Christians of all denominations argue amongst each other that only their God is the true God, and that they are the ones who are not worshipping false Gods. They all have the same basic set of commandments, laughably.
- It doesn't say idols can't be made of the God that isn't defined, so idols can indeed be made of anything, so long as the idol is called God. Therefore, the commandment is internally contradictory.
- It doesn't say what wrongful use of God's name is so any speech might be wrongful use.
- There is no inherent Sabbath, and any day could be called Sabbath (since any day can be the seventh), so one could be breaking the rule if one does any work at all. Similarly, work is not defined, so even if one made up a 7th day, one wouldn't know when one is dishonouring a Sabbath or not.
- It doesn't define "honour", so one doesn't know when one is honouring a parent or not. Nor what a parent is (is God a parent? are one's causes one's parents?).
- Murdering or killing is not defined, because life is not defined, nor what kinds of life are not to be murdered.
- Stealing is not defined, because the dynamics of possession and selfhood are not defined.
- Bearing false witness against a neighbour is unclear, because it does not say from whose perspective something is false, nor what a neighbour is.
- Coveting a neighbour's possessions is not defined, for the same reason mentioned previously.

The list is vague and subjectively interpreted, so it is impossible to consider that a God has invented them for humans. Everyone will make up their own fiction of God, and then say their own commandments are the right ones.

No, one doesn't need to create a system of ethics. All one need do is value the truth, and let everything else follow.

.
Hi Kelly,

While I can certainly appreciate the importance of the truth in the quest for ethical behavior, it seems to me that people may need more than that. Assuming that the language can be appropriately massaged, I think that building a system may be very beneficial. It would certainly be a delicate balance; that is, the language of the system would have to be general enough to allow a great deal of latitude in behavior, but also specific enough to delineate right and wrong. My intuition is that fundamental human values like altruism, compassion, tolerance, wisdom, and forgiveness, are rooted in the fundamental nature of reality.
User avatar
uncledote
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 am
Location: UK

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by uncledote »

Kelly Jones wrote:By what could I compare it, in order to define it?

Truth is everything, yet is only apparent to the rational person. If you need more information, reason is based on the certainty of identity. An expression of that certainty is "there is always something".

.

I don't get this at all. Seems circuitous to me. How would you define 'reason', or 'identity' or 'something'?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

Is "identity" different from "something"?
User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Anders Schlander »

otiosedodge wrote:
Anders Schlander wrote:hm.... well..

are you intending your system to be a kind of 'map' for other people?

it's hard to systemize such a map leading to insights because people respond to different things, and concepts can make people more bewildered and lost within their thoughts.

if what you've started with as your foundation is sound, by working forwards you will grasp it clearer and be able to best live up to your ethics, or if your foundation is un-sound, that you might both be going in prematurely and into the wrong path with this. Even if it turns out, that there are problems, with your insight perhaps, your realization is already a very large mental change, one that you should take as part of a developing.

On another note, an abstract system might help find what best suits the individual, but if you meet somebody on the street, its going to be even harder to judge the person and figure out what to do. If you knew how to help somebody on the street, you wouldn't need to come up with a system, would you?
Hi Anders,

I intend for the ethical system to be derived from the so-called fundamental insight. That is, once people have realized that this insight is solid, then my idea would be explore the implications of this insight for life in the modern world. Things like consumption habits, choice of livelihood, and day-to-day conduct would all be fair game. In a perfect world, this system would amount to a declaration of human values, but one that is empirically based, ie, based on the fundamental insight, as opposed to declarations of human values that may largely be correct, but not empirically based (eg, the Dalai Lama's 'Ethics for the New Millennium' or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

I think that I've already made the biggest leap in my development by securing this insight, and I don't see how it would be wrong to start helping others now. Unless, of course, you can provide me with a good reason not to.

I think that helping someone on the street, given the appropriate parameters, is easier than deciding, for example, how much of your salary to donate to appropriate charities. An abstract system, in my opinion, may help people in making more abstract decisions about morality.

Best

An emperical mode of ethics will always fail for humans who are trapped in appearances, that is, people who don't follow Truth (Metaphysical, certain, un-emperical rational grounding) will not follow the ethics because they don't value them.. And the majority of people don't value the ethics of trying to live truthfully. It's like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
Steven Coyle

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Steven Coyle »

just some gatorade with pleasures
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by otiosedodge »

Anders Schlander wrote:
otiosedodge wrote:
Anders Schlander wrote:hm.... well..

are you intending your system to be a kind of 'map' for other people?

it's hard to systemize such a map leading to insights because people respond to different things, and concepts can make people more bewildered and lost within their thoughts.

if what you've started with as your foundation is sound, by working forwards you will grasp it clearer and be able to best live up to your ethics, or if your foundation is un-sound, that you might both be going in prematurely and into the wrong path with this. Even if it turns out, that there are problems, with your insight perhaps, your realization is already a very large mental change, one that you should take as part of a developing.

On another note, an abstract system might help find what best suits the individual, but if you meet somebody on the street, its going to be even harder to judge the person and figure out what to do. If you knew how to help somebody on the street, you wouldn't need to come up with a system, would you?
Hi Anders,

I intend for the ethical system to be derived from the so-called fundamental insight. That is, once people have realized that this insight is solid, then my idea would be explore the implications of this insight for life in the modern world. Things like consumption habits, choice of livelihood, and day-to-day conduct would all be fair game. In a perfect world, this system would amount to a declaration of human values, but one that is empirically based, ie, based on the fundamental insight, as opposed to declarations of human values that may largely be correct, but not empirically based (eg, the Dalai Lama's 'Ethics for the New Millennium' or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

I think that I've already made the biggest leap in my development by securing this insight, and I don't see how it would be wrong to start helping others now. Unless, of course, you can provide me with a good reason not to.

I think that helping someone on the street, given the appropriate parameters, is easier than deciding, for example, how much of your salary to donate to appropriate charities. An abstract system, in my opinion, may help people in making more abstract decisions about morality.

Best

An emperical mode of ethics will always fail for humans who are trapped in appearances, that is, people who don't follow Truth (Metaphysical, certain, un-emperical rational grounding) will not follow the ethics because they don't value them.. And the majority of people don't value the ethics of trying to live truthfully. It's like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
Maybe I wasn't clear: I was planning on first explaining the ultimate nature of reality (as far as it can be explained) and the building the system directly on top of it. I agree fully with you that people wouldn't get it if they didn't have the necessary insight into the ultimate nature of reality.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Blair »

If they have insight into the ultimate nature of reality, they won't need your 2-bit "method" will they.

If they don't, they will have their fingers in their ears and loudly sing LA LA LA I don't hear you...
User avatar
uncledote
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 am
Location: UK

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by uncledote »

Kelly Jones wrote:Is "identity" different from "something"?
'Identity' as properties of a known thing. 'Something' as an unknown or with unspecified properties?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

uncledote wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:Is "identity" different from "something"?
'Identity' as properties of a known thing. 'Something' as an unknown or with unspecified properties?
Simplify. If something appears, it is known. It is identified as existing, and there lies the certainty of reason. In turn, one can base everything on that, since the certainty of something appearing is a fundamental expression of truth.

But any properties specified for what is appearing, will not be certain. Nor will a system of ethics lead to truth, since they are also trying to specify what is.

.
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by otiosedodge »

Kelly Jones wrote:
uncledote wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:Is "identity" different from "something"?
'Identity' as properties of a known thing. 'Something' as an unknown or with unspecified properties?
Simplify. If something appears, it is known. It is identified as existing, and there lies the certainty of reason. In turn, one can base everything on that, since the certainty of something appearing is a fundamental expression of truth.

But any properties specified for what is appearing, will not be certain. Nor will a system of ethics lead to truth, since they are also trying to specify what is.

.
I've heard proponents of emptiness describe the situation of those that haven't realized it as living in a nightmare -- though they can't really be hurt or be made happy by anything (short of abiding in the non-conceptual stillness of the present), they think that they can be hurt. So how about a system for helping others realize that suffering and happiness are ultimately conceptual constructs. That seems like a system that will lead to truth.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

That wouldn't be a system of ethics. It's a way to teach about emptiness, and is a good way to orient a great many persons.

.
Locked