Tuazon, Paul Anthony S.

Ph – B 4

Understanding Eastern Philosophy (Ethics): A summary – outline

Page 151:

 The first concern is about the importance of motives in making moral

judgment.
 There is universality in the topic (ethics and the different concerns) which will
be discussed that is absent from the previous discussions.
 The question on right or wrong behavior is related in our lives and existence
and has been debated over and over because there is no such thing as moral
neutrality. We can never avoid thinking or behaving or prevent that our
behavior affects others.
 Eastern philosophy is claimed to have no ethics worth it to be discussed.

Page 152:

 Eastern ethics is not another paradox.

 Western differs from Eastern moral philosophy for western philosophy would
spend time debating on what knowledge and where knowledge came from;
eastern is direct to the point and down to earth for eastern philosophy
concentrates taking the situation itself.

Page 153:

 Hinduism’s goal is Samadhi; Buddhism is Nirvana; Taoism is oneness with the

Tao; Hinduism will aim to eliminate one’s greed for that means to be deceived
by Maya.
 Critics claim that Eastern morality is too flexible.

Page 154:

 `Second issue focuses about the question on selfish motives can ever be
totally eliminated from human behavior, if not, does it matter?
Page 155:

 Hobbes’ idea supports the 2nd argument where altruism is an illusion and in the
end, man is egoistic.
 Rousseau’s view is opposite to Hobbes because Rousseau views man as good
by nature and state is already in perfection for it mirrors the heaven but only
altered by social ethos.
 Mencius has a similar point to Hobbes.
 Eastern view generally is not ambiguous, it is possible for people to behave in
an altruistic manner, but the purpose is to benefit the agent and not to the
person to whom it is addressed (e.g. A monk may give alms to another monk
with different religion but the two monks would interpret it as merely part of
the giver’s spiritual journey).
 Christians may argue on Hindu’s act on pursuit of good Karma is selfish
because of its aim and motivation.
 In this case: it seems that it is impossible for human deliberately to seek
unhappiness even in many attempts.
 Anyone that seeks an answer to the mystery of human motivation would end
up in a dead-end to which eastern philosopher prefers more to be agnostic
rather than believe in orders and laws the same like Christians do.

Page 156:

 Western’s karma definition differs from east, particularly Hinduism.

 It implies that any observers of the Indian scene may point that missions for
down and outs are more emphasized in Christianity; Christianity is more
altruistic and less fatalistic compare to Hinduism.
 The argument implies that: that if the dispute is about the philosophy of
religion and its outcome comparing and contrasting to which is better, it lacks
the real essence and definition of religion to the others needs which
downgrades the view on religion.
 The doctrine of Karma being examined in the next lines on whether the
eradication of poverty in India would also suggest in abolishing the caste
system. In Christian aspect, many missions for the poor (e.g. feeding program,
free education, free housing) to give help, but the cycle goes on as one
beggar disappears being help and uplifted, one would take his place.
 It is not the karmic tradition that creates negativity but despair that it can ever
be overcome.
  Meanwhile, moksha (liberation) can be achieved by those who are in poverty.
Scholars would say that it would lead to Karl Marx idea that religion is the
opium of the masses but for Hindus, Hindus can achieve the reward in present
existence and not in after-life the same to Christianity and concept of heaven.

Page 157:

 Final area concerns the rejection of moral absolutes expressed in all the
schools.
 Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism rejects the concept of an almighty God and
his will through moral injunctions that his creatures are commanded to obey.
 The situation of Moses in Mt. Sinai was criticized for being only a picturesque
in responding the source of knowledge whether what is right or wrong.
Behind the law’s given by lies the centuries of grappling with moral dilemmas.
 It gives an implication that we can’t deny that in the end, what is right is
behavior that accords with God’s will.
 Eastern philosophers reject the concept of a law giving God.
 Rules for the monks and gurus are strict but anyone who is following the rule
must know what they are trying to do.
 Taoism rejects the concept of right and wrong as a set of moral do’s and
don’ts.
 Taoist suggests the idea about behavior; behaviors will be right or wrong not
because of divine decree but it is the natural way to behave.

Page 158:

 West suggests that in knowing whether it is morally justified or not must

undergo a debate. Taoist argues that debate is unnatural representation of
the situation.
 Viewed in the Hindu context to discuss the argument, there are no absolute
prohibitions or imperatives, appropriate behavior varies with social roles and
stages of life, and however those who try liberation outgrow norms. Instead
of seeking, as I most other religions, to live according to a received pattern,
they practice bodily, mental and emotional self-control, with the aim of
achieving personal harmony and peace. They believe that all can achieve this
aim by stabilizing the lower aspects of the person – body, mind and
 personality – reaching the ground of being which reality, consciousness, and
happiness, when reached the dualities are left behind and obtains the
liberation by having no rules or duties but acts spontaneously from joy and
welfare of others.

Page 159:

 Liberation= awareness of non-duality, a state of “beyond good and evil”.

 Benevolent acts – and any others that maybe termed morally desirable – are
viewed as an intuitive expression of the experience of oneness with all beings,
rather than as a painstaking observance of rules for which rational arguments
can be offered.

Page 160:

 To be in the state of “beyond good and evil” is to be beyond the level

debating the answer on what is right and wrong of any moral matter in the
first place.