Buddhist Ethics A study of Early Buddhist Ethics, and their Modern Implications By: Carl Bryan PHL 499 Independent Study Submitted to: Dr. Fisher Dept. of Philosophy North Central College “The two basic values or categories of human good which are recognized by Buddhism are moral and intellectual excellence.” - Damien Keown from The Nature of Buddhist Ethics Part One: A World of Possibilities In understanding Buddhist ethics, one must grasp the immeasurable number of factors that went into forming and sustaining the religion’s moral system. But there are bigger questions that need to be addressed prior to asking about Buddhist ethics. Question such as how to set out understanding the nature of Buddhist ethics will provide a great amount of insight when looking at the topic in question. One might first begin by more closely examining the nature of ethics in general, before trying to understand the applied effort within Buddhism. The investigation of ethics arises as a result of social interaction. No matter what view on ethics is being held, the source of each need for moral principles is a consequence of having to interact with one another. Whether it be ethics within Marxism, stressing that ethics are closely tied to economics, or within theology, where one may hold that ethics are for social benefit as well as the individual. The need for ethics has never been in question. For thousands of years before the Buddha people had found the same need he did in order to reason actions in this world. For the Buddha, morals and ethics will be one of the cornerstones of his spiritual practice. Despite ethics arising as a result of social interaction and practice, ethics within Buddhism also had deep roots within the philosophy of the Buddha. The philosophy that the Buddha developed was unique for the time in India when one takes into account the other traditions that had dominated the area. The Vedic religion began nearly a thousand years prior to the Buddha’s life, but it had a large impact on the region that would later serve has the home to early Buddhism. Being a polytheistic religion, the Vedic tradition believed sacrifice to the gods would result in the gods providing aid to the men for numerous different reasons. Much like other traditions that support a caste system, the Aryans in India practicing the Vedic religion where exclusivist. The religious practice was reserved for those of the highest class, the Brahmins (Hawkins 4). The Vedic religion was highly centered on the idea of sacrifice to the Gods, and over time, that practice soon began to grow and became a means of further separating the classes, as those in the lower classes could not afford to participate in such lavish sacrificial ceremonies. By the time of the Buddha, near 500 B.C.E, the practice had lost its philosophical elements of understanding larger questions about the world, and the practical applications to leading a good life (Hawkins 3-8). The Sramanas developed a few hundred years prior to the Buddha, and brought about a new way of thinking within the Vedic tradition. These thinkers of the time developed a couple of different extremely important and lasting thoughts that would influence Hindu thought and Buddhism in the years to follow. They introduced the concept of the atman and Brahman. The atman is a pure soul that exists is some sort of connection to the Brahman, the ultimate reality. The study of the atman and Brahman will become a large issue within Buddhism, where the Buddha will reject the idea of the atman. This is nonetheless important because it also led to another important thought, reincarnation (Hawkins 8-14). The study of atman and Brahman begs new questions as to the world and to reality after death. Atman itself suggests an eternal entity, a soul that traverses planes of existence. The Vedic tradition pushes the idea of a heaven, similar to that of a religion that will develop much later, Christianity. However, for the Sramanas, the idea of heaven was not plausible. Instead they embraced the idea of reincarnation. Reincarnation however can be looked at in two extremely different ways. One can look at the process of reincarnation, or samsara, as being either positive or negative. With the situation of the world at the time, and the hard lives of individuals in India during the Sramanas, it is easy to see how they would have taken a more pessimistic view of reincarnation. By viewing the constant cycle of life, death and rebirth as a bad thing, the next logical step would be to try to remove oneself from such a seemingly endless circle. Ultimately releasing one from the cycle is known as moksha, this process would finally unite the atman with the Brahman for eternal existence in a calm everlasting peace. This in turn leads one to wonder how release from the cycle can occur, and it is found within that which travels from one birth to the next (Hawkins 3-15). The ultimate aim of any spiritual or religious practice is goodness. What goodness consists of is something that individuals themselves must try to answer, as the Buddha himself did during his years of meditation. However, striving for good within a system of samsara presents some interesting points of concern. The idea of karma was also introduced within the Sramanas traditions. It stems from the idea that each action has a reaction. Yet it is difficult to see that thought in practice in the world. The basic contention is that good actions lead to good reactions, and conversely, negative actions will lead to negative reactions. Karma is what decides the placement of the atman for birth and rebirth. This tradition also carried into another major influence on early Buddhist thought, Jainism. Jainism was founded by Mahavira, who lived just prior to the Buddha. For Mahavira, karma was the key to breaking the worldly cycle. Because all living forms contained life, a form of atman, harm towards another life accumulated negative karma. This karma would prevent their atman from rising to the top of the universe, allowing it to unite with the eternal Brahman. So the next logical step would be to institute a system that furthers the ideas of abstaining from violence. This central practice of Jainism known as Ahimsa will later become a building block of Buddhist ethics (Hawkins 15). Part Two: The Buddha and a Philosophy for the People The story of the Buddha’s life plays an important role in understanding the foundation of his teachings. The world Siddhartha Gautama was born into was a world of changing thought. Religious practice in India had been evolving for the last thousand years, and there was a growing acceptance of freedom of thought. This world however was not shown to Gautama from his birth. It is said in the numerous recounts of his life, that the Buddha was raised into a wealthy family, the son of a powerful man, perhaps a king or official ruler of some sort. It was foreseen from his childhood that he would either be a great ruler, or a religious leader. Gautama’s father obviously pushed his son into the best world he knew of, that which would follow in his own footsteps. It is this perhaps that led to the child’s later strong revelation of suffering. Because he led a sheltered life, he had not been exposed to the problems that men and women face under much more normal and universal circumstances. Thos problems presented themselves to Siddhartha when he ventured on private trips into the cities of his world. He encountered the effects of aging, illness, and death for the first time in his life. It led him to understand the world as an unpleasant place to live. It was when he ventured out the final time that he met a man that would change the course of history. It was a forest sramana wandering past him in a forest where Siddhartha had gone to meditate. It was the first introduction the later Buddha would have to a life of renunciation. “I dwell wherever I happen to be, at the root of a tree or in a deserted temple. On hill or in forest, wandering without expectations or ties, in search of the highest good” (Robinson 7). It is in this rejection of a life of civilization and its resulting duties that the Buddha will learn to shape the proper Buddhist practice and moral outlook. The Buddha’s renouncement of many things would later shape the basic moral grounds and principles of Buddhism, and possibly, the outline of Buddhism itself. Siddhartha rejected the system of atman and Brahman. For the Gautama there was no self, or I. His theory of anatman would later shape the entire foundation of Buddhist thought, the rejection of the self. This concept is one that Mahayana Buddhists will later take and run with, taking it much further than the Buddha did. This thought arises from the idea of impermanence. Another of the Buddha’s rejections came in the form abandoning asceticism. Ascetic practice had long been a part of the Sramanas tradition in India. This included all sorts of different practices, such as starvation, celibacy, and subjecting one’s self to extreme situations. It was a desire to release the body’s grasp on the atman, making it easier for the atman to reunite with the Brahman (Hawkins 13). For the Buddha, this practice was a mainstay in his life, where he had starved himself almost to the point of death. He found no refuge in this practice, as it led to no release of suffering that he could see. And so from this thought came what is known as the middle-way. This thought is not of refusing the human needs, but rather allowing only what is needed, not in excess. This thought will lead to later comparison seen in the western philosophy of Aristotle. The Buddha’s thoughts and teachings arise from the result of an extremely in depth analysis of the human psyche. Siddhartha spent six years meditating to find enlightenment and he wished to spread his experiences. It is in the analysis of human suffering that the Buddha found nirvana. And out of this analysis, he shaped what we see as the three marks of human existence. These three premises stand as the foundation of Buddhism in its entirety. The first mark is the acceptance of human existence being impermanent. “Everything, said the Buddha, is in a state of flux” (Hawkins 25). The second mark is suffering. This suffering arises as a result of reasoning existence with impermanence. For the Buddha, material things were pointless, as they were impermanent. That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory. The third mark as discussed earlier is the acceptance of anatman. The Buddha taught there was no atman, or soul, but rather a rejection of self will properly align one with the right thought. Where does this leave the question of ethics within Buddhism? We have seen that the foundation of Buddhism will rest on the relief of human suffering. Human suffering is temporal and therefore cannot be resolved existentially. Rather, human suffering needs to be solved by humans. Because the Buddha believed there was no God, or individual entity as a causal source, there is no thing or being to appeal to morally. Rather, the morals and the ethical problems need to be resolved by us. This idea stretches further than any other school of thought, in that the Buddha has included the masses in this quest for relief. There is no divine right, but rather an individual responsibility that anyone is capable exercising. This will develop later into an entire community of practitioners, from monks to laypersons. Furthermore, the practice of Buddhism has been entirely based off the quest to relieve suffering, not to attain enlightenment. The moral and ethical implications of this statement alone explain the complicated and expansive guidelines the Buddha taught after his enlightenment. Part Three: The Buddhist Practice The importance of active practice in Buddhism is a key element to its effectiveness. It is within the individual that one can release the idea of self. Odd it is that it requires the examination of one’s self to realize that the self is not there, yet logical when taken into account it is an examination of that which has hindered our view. It is the idea that the perception of the self has within it the very element that makes it difficult for us to look beyond it. It is perpetually making it harder and harder for us to separate ourselves from it. The ultimate liberation from suffering comes from enlightenment, and it is within the quest for enlightenment one will find the moral principles contained within the Buddhist religion. The Buddha’s four noble truths outline what it is to follow the practice of the Buddha. Within it lies an implicit explanation to the process of the quest. The first truth is that life is full of suffering. In the world we live in, suffering is not only a problem, it is inevitable. The second truth outlines what would be the explanation for this suffering as we have previous learned. The suffering we experience in the world is a result of the craving of temporal things. Our constant cravings for material things and other intangible sources of superiority only tie the idea of humans to a self. This embodies the concept of atman, rather than rejecting it, and accepting anatman. The third truth proclaims that there is indeed a path to release one’s “self” from this unsatisfactory existence. This statement also suggests that anyone is capable of going down this path. The fourth noble truth is the most expansive; as it is the outline of the pathway one may follow to release them from the cycle of samsara. The Buddha’s Eightfold path is the fourth noble truth, the pathway to enlightenment. It is important to note the extreme use of explicit emphasis on morals and knowledge. This shows that within the original Buddhist thought, there was particular emphasis on the morals and ethics as being the route to eliminating human suffering. Though I will follow with an explanation of particular elements of the eight fold path, it can be best understood within a graphic rather than a textual representation. The Eightfold path is aligned along the outside of a wheel, with paths from each leading to the center. The center can be held as representing Nirvana. It is important to understand the further divisions within the eightfold path. Within the eight paths, they have been separated into three strands of classification. The first group is concerned with morality. This group consists of Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood. This group will be focused on with relevance to this examination with little attention allotted for the others. The second strand concerns concentration or meditation. It is comprised of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. The third group is of wisdom. It is made of the two remaining paths, Right Intention and Right Understanding. The group of pathways is essential to understanding the roots of Buddhist ethics. Moving past the paths of wisdom which are essential to understanding the Buddhist philosophy on being, we find ourselves at the door of action. It is within the four noble truths that we see the first element of Buddhist practice requiring extremely active participation. From this we see the importance of Buddhist ethical principles in not only managing the world we live in, but also in aiding to reduce and eliminating the accumulation of karma that will keep us within the samsara. Though there are ethical implications, especially that of applied ethics, within the eightfold path it is important to understand the ultimate principle. These paths are providing a route to ultimate liberation. The ethical implications are merely a result, yet they hold a great deal of value. Within the principles we can see how it is the Buddha envisioned people behaving providing for the least amount of suffering, resulting in the most amounts of good, all along the way to enlightenment. The first path to examine is Right Speech. Within this pathway, there is an understanding that speech covers all sorts of communication between humans. Our words have a power that needs to be controlled because of its tendency to cause a great deal of harm. The Buddha outlined four different forms of speech that “bring peace to our lives and the lives of those who surround us” (Kim par.5). Words of honesty, kindness, that are nurturing, and worthy value are those that will lead to the least suffering. It is outside of those forms of speech that we find difficulty and strife. Therefore, abstaining from these outlined moral forms of speech will hinder the process of obtaining enlightenment (Kim). Right Action is the next pathway that is requiring examination. Within this pathway is the difficult task of deciding what moral right action is. Ultimately, the Buddha taught it was within the person that answer must come, not from some universal set of unchangeable rules. What else can we expect from a man who preached everything is constantly changing, there is no static reality? Within this explanation come the decisions everyone must make, and how those decisions should be made. The Buddha practiced three principles in his life that he believed to correctly adjust the human condition. Respecting life, earning what you have and controlling your desires can essentially encapsulate every major ethically puzzling action one may encounter. The real test is within the individual’s application of these teachings from the Sutras to their decisions in their lives. This also ties in the third path within morality in the eightfold pathway, and that is Right Livelihood. Right Livelihood requires evaluating one’s lifestyle and worldview. It is the manor in which we set about living our lives. The Buddha outlined five things to avoid in pursuit of this pathway. “Dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants” (Bodhi). These matters of lifestyles are important within moral and ethical decisions when we see the history of the world in a quick glance. Take the slavery of individuals, the exploitation of animals, and the large businesses associated with the production of poisons of all forms, as well as widening legality of intoxicants around the world. Though these are admittedly not the entire representation of moral values within the origins of Buddhism, it is sufficient enough to see what the Buddha had outlined as the true path of relieving the world from suffering. It is within the eightfold path that we see the Theravada division of Buddhism thrive, the original Sutras outlining the thoughts of these paths directly. So did the expansion of Buddhism and the resulting difference of sects and practices have an impact on these original ethical values? The real answer is no. Despite the differences between the expansions of Buddhism into the Mahayana traditions, very little affected the core moral principles and practices. The monastic code differs from tradition to tradition, but the moral implications remain. Within all of this understanding is a simple premise. The action is secondary to the intention. With the right intention comes the right action, nearly regardless of the outcome. It is the acceptance that right intention will lead to the best possible result, and moral and ethical life decisions can be made on that premise. It is to the individual to follow the teachings and principles as best they can that will judge whether or not the situation is ethical or not. Part Four: From the Past, Present, and Future So what is the purpose of this inquisition into the origins of Buddhist ethics? The understanding must come from an examination into the present state of Buddhist thought, and the current state of modern ethics around the world. It is a widely argued concept that Buddhism is even a religion at all. What is it that defines a religion? If one views a religion as providing a source of ultimate reality, Buddhism fits the description. Buddhism aims one at the enlightened state of Nirvana, where existence of the self is realized as false and the acceptance of everything being one is attained. However, one could also classify religions as having an ultimate answer to the source of all things, a creator, or designer. That Buddhism cannot provide. Buddhism has no entity to worship, other than the enlightened ones who chose to return to spread the knowledge. It is not concerned with the thoughts of origination and such, as it answers no questions that the Buddha was concerned with. He was concerned with eliminating suffering. So what then if it is or is not a religion? Does the question even matter at all? The Buddha’s message was compassion, and for not only himself to be relieved of suffering, but for everyone. Does it take a religion to do so? The ethical implications of Buddhism transverse cultures like no other. The basic outline of compassionate behavior and intention are key elements to the success of a Buddhist, but can they help other religions to better understand their own faiths? Buddhist thought is much like the constitution of the United States, change is possible, but difficult to accomplish if it does not remain true to the basic principles. The United States constitutional amendment process is a work of beauty in relation to political theory. It is a self correcting process that works to only further the system as whole, yet large changes can occur. Buddhism has seen large changes over the time, and in the current times, yet all the principles remain the same. The Buddha himself taught this was his path of enlightenment, and that it can work for everyone, but the practice remains largely personal. There is no direct source to appeal to when we get confused. Rather we must rely on our own intellect and wisdom to provide us with the correct solution. Recently, in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have seen the spread of Buddhism into the west. It has taken many forms, but it is interesting to look into the parallels of Buddhist ethics to western ethics. We can trace extremely similar such circumstances back to an ancient philosopher who personified and believed in extremely similar ethical values that the Buddha did. Aristotle may be known for many different reasons. He has covered any and all topics within Philosophy and other disciplines. However, his thoughts on ethics and morals strike similar tones that early Buddhist ethics did, and continue to do today. Aristotle’s Ethics are outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. Within it are parallels to Buddhist theory and ethics that not only embrace the moral aspects, but also the ultimate reality aspects, as outlined by Damien Keown within The Nature of Buddhist Ethics. Keown supposes that Aristotle’s conception of eudaumonia and the Buddhist conception of nirvana are related in the sense that they both specify an end. The purpose of the good life, or the virtuous life for Aristotle, leads to an end. For Buddhists it is reaching the state of nirvana. For Aristotle, it was eudaumonia. Keown writes, “For Aristotle the goal of human perfection has no transcendental implications: it is perfection to be manifested in this world alone and specifically in the social context of the polis” (Keown 195). Keown follows to find no connection between the two, because of the lack of transcendental similarities. Yet I still see a large connection in that the point of the life for Aristotle is the lifelong practice towards the end, whether it be nirvana or not. The similar practice and outlook suggest strong similarities indeed. Aristotle also embodies the thoughts of a combination of multiple elements that will lead to the ultimate end. “What will this goal be like? It will not involve the random pursuit of multiple goods (a plurality of first-order ends), nor even one particular good amongst others (a dominant end). Rather is will include a number of good things (yet to bed defined) in harmonious combination: this is how we are to understand eudaumonia or human flourishing” (Keown 199). What are those good things to be defined? For Aristotle it is within virtue. Virtue is the balance between excess and deficiency. It is the managing of actions and feelings in a moral manor in which one lives the best life. An interesting excerpt from the Nicomachean Ethics provides an interesting parallel between the Buddhist process of meditation and relying on intellect and reflection and Aristotle’s take on goodness within deliberation. “There is a difference between inquiry and deliberation; for deliberation is a particular kind of inquiry. We must grasp the nature of excellence in deliberation as well—whether it is a form of scientific knowledge, or opinion, or skill in conjecture, or some other kind of thing. Scientific knowledge it is not; for men do not inquire about the things they know about, but good deliberation is a kind of deliberation, and he who deliberates inquires and calculates. Nor is it skill in conjecture; for this both involves no reasoning and is something that is quick in its operation, while men deliberate a long time, and they say that one should carry out quickly the conclusions of one’s deliberation, but should deliberate slowly. Again, readiness of mind is different from excellence in deliberation; it is a sort of skill in conjecture. Nor again is excellence in deliberation opinion of any sort. But since the man who deliberates badly makes a mistake, while he who deliberates well does so correctly, excellence in deliberation is clearly a kind of correctness, but neither of knowledge nor of opinion; for there is no such things as correctness of knowledge (since there is no such things as error of knowledge), and correctness of opinion is truth; and at the same time everything that is an object of opinion is already determined. But again excellence in deliberation involves reasoning. The remaining alternative, then, is that it is correctness of thinking; for this is not yet assertion, since, while even opinion is not inquiry but has reached the stage of assertion, the man who is deliberating, whether he does so well or ill, is searching for something and calculating” (Aristotle 150). Aristotle puts extreme importance on the individual who examines and balances his virtues. That is the individual that can attain happiness. For Buddhists, the path to enlightenment is a deep understanding that can only be arrived at via similar means. The end may indeed be very different, yet the pathway seems to be the same. Both philosophies stress moderation. As the Buddha’s middle-way suggests, it is the balance of the things we need and the things we want that is the correct path, not the extreme on either side. It is what led the Buddha to reject Ascetic practice. It held no path to the relief from suffering, or held any sort of goodness. Aristotle continues within the Nicomachean Ethics to outline numerous virtues in understanding and practice that all have the same principle, balance. The encounters we are forced to deal with are part of the human experience, it is how we handle those encounters that is of importance. So Buddhist ethics have parallels within western philosophy, but it does not suggest that Buddhist ethics played a role in influencing Aristotle’s thought. Rather, it is interesting to speculate that both philosophies emerged nearly independent of the other, yet outlined extremely similar moral and ethical principles. This only strengthens those claims that Buddhism relates more as a philosophy of the good life, rather than that of a religion. A recent book written by the current Dalai Lama also represents this idea that Buddhism can serve not only as a way to “salvation” or nirvana, but also that of a universal moral ethic, one that everyone can gain from in their own right. The book entitled Ethics for the New Millennium suggests that the morals embodied by Buddhists can provide a foundation for a more peaceful world. This sort of religious pluralism is not suggesting that Buddhist thought is correct and the ultimate truth, but rather just the opposite. The Dalai Lama is proclaiming the possibility of moral ethics expanding further into people like a Buddhist traveling the path to enlightenment. It does not require one to be a Buddhist, but rather admit that an improvement in universal moral ethics would result in a more hopeful and peaceful world. “There is also, as we have noted, growing acceptance of the universality of human rights and indeed of the need to accept diversity in areas of common importance, such as, for example, in religious affairs. This I believe to reflect a recognition of the need for a wider perspective in response to the diversity of the human family itself. As a result, despite so much suffering continuing to be inflicted on individuals and peoples in the name of ideology, or religion, or progress, or development, or economics, a new sense of hope is emerging for the downtrodden. Although it will undoubtedly be difficult to bring about genuine peace and harmony, clearly it can be done. The potential is there. And its foundation is a sense of responsibility on the part of each of us as individuals towards all others” (Lama 170-71). The Dalai Lama ends the book with a chapter entitled An Appeal. It is a plea to others to embody compassion and caring for others, in the most moral and ethical way possible. Help those in need and practice the good life. It rings the bells of impermanence as he states our time here is limited, and it is in our best interest to pursue the greatest possible of lifestyles. The appeal to universal acceptance of morals with differing religions and ethical outlooks has been long growing to a stronger foundation. Works like this help to progress the acceptance of faiths working with one another, and ethics being the common link. It is like two trees, each a different religion, with a branch slowly growing between them, slowly connecting them on an ethical basis. This is the contemporary state of Buddhist ethics. Applied ethics are just examinations and someone’s perception on whether or and action of value is ethically consistent. Within Buddhist ethics, it seems to be a contradiction to attempt to outline whether or not a particular action is universally right or wrong. It would be of very little use to examine such applied ethics within the context of early or modern Buddhist thought. Rather, it is better left within the hands of the subject attempting to decide the matter. But by taking moral and ethical principles grounded in compassion and selflessness, one can make a true Buddhist ethical decision. Part Five: Conclusion Within the entire span of Buddhism’s hold on people, it has expressed a few consistent principles that embody the entire spectrum of Buddhist thought. Compassion, morals, right practice, and right intentions make the foundation of Buddhist thought and practice. A few questions come to mind when viewing this study as a whole. With regard to Buddhism as a religion, what can be said about the moral and religious qualities of the practice? There has been a growing divergence between concepts of nirvana and splitting of traditions within Buddhism offer a clue as to the importance of the process as a religion. The concern with the ends seems to change from tradition to tradition, yet the moral guidelines stay the same. The ethics within the eightfold path apply as if they are a universal ethic. The outlines are not commandments, rather descriptions of what the Buddha believed to be the best possible moral decisions. For him, it related to the system of samsara and the belief in karma. Yet for Christians, the same types of ethical values apply. They preach kindness and social responsibility as a means to an end. That is where the importance lies, within the means. Whether or not Buddhism is considered a religion, or a spiritual path, or simply an ethical approach to life, its importance and compassionate qualities make it universal. Perhaps that is why the spread of Buddhism has been able to adapt within different cultures, focusing on the means can bring people together. It truly does not matter if Buddhism is a religion or not, because as the current Dalai Lama expresses it, its teachings and morals can benefit Buddhist and non-Buddhist equally, in attempting to unite world on common ethical principles. We have seen the convergence within countries uniting for aid, such as the recent tsunami disasters. It is only because of basic morals that the world does so, it is a shame it does not happen more often. Buddhism is morality. Buddhism is the practice of ethics for the purpose of eliminating suffering. With morals, Buddhism would not be what it has become today. The ethical and moral implications within Buddhism are to engrained in the original Theravada tradition so deeply that ethics and Buddhism are inseparable. So is Buddhism to be a cross-over hit? Not only a success within the realm of religion, but also within philosophy? Aristotle may think so. Many other philosophers would also agree. The Dalai Lama himself is spreading the idea of a universal ethic, not one contained within the realm of only their traditions and religions. But is this possible? Uniting people on the grounds of a universal system of morals? Of course it is possible, but it is within the very nature of Buddhism itself that it will be dependent upon. It is changing one’s outlook on life. Especially in the west, Buddhism is fighting an uphill battle against materialism; at it is one of the largest contributors to the opposite of what Buddhism is trying to practice. Materialism creates not only a projection of the self, but one that needs constant improvement. Overcoming a conceptual trait like materialism requires adjusting one’s views of the world, as the Buddha did in his meditations. Like Keown stated in The Nature of Buddhist Ethics, it is within moral and intellectual excellence that Buddhism rooted. Buddhism opens those doors in many ways to believers and non-believers alike. The real question then is: what can Buddhist ethics do for you? Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1991. Bodhi, Bhikkhu. The Noble Eightfold Path: The Way to the End of Suffering. 25 May, 2005. Buddhist Publication Society, 1994. . Hawkins, Bradley K. The Pocket Guide to Buddhism (adapted from Hawkins’ Religions of the World: Buddhism, 1st Ed. Alpha Books: New York, 2003. Keown, Damien. The Nature of Buddhist Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Kim, Ch’onsa. The Eightfold Path. 25 May, 2005. Nov., 1999. . Lama, His Holiness Dalai. Ethics for the New Millennium. Penguin Putnam: New York, 1999. Robinson, Richard H. Et al. Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction. Thomson Wadsworth:: Belmont, 2005.