Copy of an e-mail I wrote to my environmental philosophy professor detailing what seems to be the kernel of Buddhist ethics:
It seems to me, thinking sensibly about this, that in terms of the source of their ethical values, Buddhists are actually more in tune with nature than other traditions. Does this mean that Buddhists are more right than other traditions? What do you think?

__________________
Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!

This dependant on which religious tradition you have in regard to "nature". If you have a traditionally judeo-christian outlook where man was put on earth to subjugate nature, to till and plant, to toil in the soil, so to speak the buddhist POV isn't the very best thing one could think of. If you have a more gaiacentric view of things it is more ethical because because it is symbiotic with nature.

In the Monotheistic traditions, normally God is in direct control over nature/fate/and will. In a more gaiacentric cause and effect system where it is not a being but a system that is creating the hardships it would make sense that the buddhist version is more ethical.

In western cultures people do not often pay credence to the cycle of rebirths in a linear system people tend to prefer that their will is more important than do people who live according to a rebirth cycle. It is much easier to dehumanize the system if one has many chances to work things out.

__________________
Pink is not exactly the color of non-conformity......

My professor liked it enough that he decided to read it in class! Since his view is that nature is a series of cyclical interconnected feedback loops and continual human interference in this system will inevitably result in its collapse (and since human existence is predicated by the smooth operation of these cycles, as a corollary, upon its collapse, humanity too will collapse), he was quite taken with it.

My view is that being the lord of nature doesn't mean subjugating it, but rather shepherding it. The idea that lording=subjugating is AFAIK actually a minority view even among Christians, primarily concentrated in the fundamental and apocalypicist subsets.

__________________
Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!

It was well written and I can see why you prof liked it, you were asking for opinions so I gave one.

__________________
Pink is not exactly the color of non-conformity......

You've basically explained the first two of the Four Noble Truths: dukkha, the nature of suffering, and trishna, the origin of suffering. The other two being that there is a way out of samsara, a way out of the cycle of suffering, and the fourth that the way out of samsara is by way of the Eightfold Path.

Buddhist ethics seems more concerned with the fourth Noble Truth, the Eightfold Path. The first three Truths being something closer to an explanation on the nature of sentient life; if the first three are true, then the fourth explains how we should act.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

I would disagree with this point. In the judeo-christian faith God gave man dominion over the animals. Looking at judeo-christian cultures, they have used animals as labor, food and a source of materials (i.e. leather, etc.) In some eastern faiths, animals are viewed as sacred and are not used for those purposes.

Quite clearly, the religious culture you come from will determine how you define the concept of nature. As seen above, some cultures will view it as a resource to be exploited while others will not.

The expansion of the teaching of 'trisna' means in practise that we are generally acting out of clinging or craving (greed), or out of dislike and rejection (fear), or 'not-seeing-things-as-they-are' (delusion). (These 'afflictions' are usually symbolised in Tibetan painting by the pig, the snake and the rooster.) And due to our conditioning, we are not aware of this and think it is normal. But this 'normality' is actually a stressful state - hence, 'dukkha', suffering.

Even though you can project this onto the world stage - for example, recent economic events certainly seem the result of greed and delusion writ large - in fact where it is most useful is understanding the moments of your own existence, from one minute to the next. This is where 'the rubber hits the road' so to speak.

There are many ways that one can imagine 'dharma' to be, or many ramifications that one might think it has, but really learning to see it on that level is fundamental. One might have a theory about craving, but meanwhile, this 'craving' (and all the related afflictions) are driving one's thinking about it.

And I think it is quite correct to say that if one were aware in this manner then certainly 'awareness of nature' is certainly much deeper, no question.

Pagans had more respect and actually worshiped nature in one form or another and by so doing placed nature above men.Women by this example became prized examples of natures bounty.We are a product of nature and if we ignore its value, we devalue ourselves.Sacrifice was in some way acknowledging natures dominance over them.I have always felt through the history of Hinduism, being an ancient pagan faith, it shaped many Buddhist teachings.

I have one question. In Buddhism there has always been a point obscure for me. You are speaking about ethics, avoiding suffering etc. but amongst Buddha's characteristics of being there was... absence of self, that is of one who suffer. If there is no one to suffer, what for is the teaching? Eudaimon.

Aha! You should familiarise yourself with the Diamond Sutra which addresses exactly this question.