White hat, grey hat, or black hat?

Depends , who is defrauded and what’s the probability of taking the stick.

Why should fraud be an opportunity? No need to be fraudulent, just be yourself. Would the reason for seeing an opportunity in committing fraud be the disease of capitalismitis?

If i would know for sure that the only victims would be fraudsters themselves, then maybe yes.

But the victims of insurance fraud for instance are not the insurance companies, but all the other people paying for an insurance.

This is going to sound cheesy but...

I take my Buddhist practice rather seriously and avoiding the ten non-virtues is part of that. Not because I am trying to avoid punishment or rebirth in the lower realms, but rather because committing them would encourage the idea that there is a tangible self with something to gain or lose. That's a pesky mental habit with a plethora of troubles. So most of the time I'd rather avoid getting whatever the non-virtuous action would gain me, in return I get to loosen the hold of taking reality too seriously.

With that being said... The first seven of the ten can be broken by a Bodhisatva if and when it is for the purpose of helping/protecting another person. So if it came down to needing to steal or fraud in order to help someone who really needs it, it would be a bit of a different story -- albeit this would only be a consideration AFTER I've exhausted my every effort that doesn't require theft/fraud.

If there is no tangible self, doesn't that mean that there is no tangible self to steal from? You could just steal from the rich and either waste it all away or help someone out. You don't have to steal for your personal benefit.

lol you can logic your way into thinking anything is okay, which is why “there is no self” isn’t supposed to be an intellectual statement. From a Buddhist perspective there is no self to steal, no other to steal from, and nothing to be stolen… but once you use that as a logical reason to steal then there is all of a sudden an imagined self with an imagined reason to steal, an imagined other it’s okay to steal from, etc… until you’ve now reasoned your way back into karmic action and illusion (maya).

What’s the use of Emptiness when we start to use it as a piece of logic? It is no longer Emptiness but an idea we have hijacked for personal use.

Emptiness experienced as a state of mind is Wisdom (Jnana), the state of mind of a Buddha. One might think “ah I have realized emptiness and now I can act however because everything is like an illusion” but if one had truly realized and let go into emptiness then they should be able to perform all the miraculous abilities of a Buddha.

Can’t do literal miracles for the benefit of others? More practice, less talk of emptiness.

There are ten bhumis, or levels, of a bodhisatva. The first is said to occur when one truly experiences Jnana for the first time. By the time one reaches the second Bhumi they will have already experienced siddhis like clairvoyance. In the West we have a tendency to intellectualize emptiness and try to use it as a philosophical crutch.

With Mahayana it’s very simple and straightforward; practice emptiness. Everything else is just a signpost, having no inherent value beyond leading to emptiness.

I pretty much agree with most of what you say, but logic is a fun game to play sometimes, but yes, it's nothing more than a game. I do have a somewhat strong opinion about doing whatever to ignite social change, but I know that much of my radical thinking comes from a deep seated and fairly legitimate frustration about the way our world has become. So... I still keep a healthy skepticism about most of the things I believe in, but I don't know, the thought of burning down the entire economic empires is quite... enticing!

For me, this is very much context based.

If I commit fraud in some way that leads to what I feel is the betterment of others, then yes, perhaps (Robin Hood).

If it turns out to be harmlessly funny, then maybe.

Otherwise, probably not. Just against my morals to do so. Then again, I'm also the type that rarely takes advantage of an edge that I may have in or on something.



The timing of some of these statements is ironic because I've been taking notes on an idea about the self relative to Buddhism and Hinduism.

I'm not sure that Buddha would've said in a declarative manner that there is no self, for regardless of how he would have answered, it would give the receiver something to be attached to, when the main goal is non-attachment; even from the notion of non-attachment.

That said, I'm not convinced that we don't have a self, but lean more towards, it's not what we think it is, which is why self-awareness is the most important type of intelligence and knowledge to be had because we ourselves are so mercurial to ourselves. And at the end of the day, it's something to be non-attached with/from. So, I'm not sure the lack of tangibility is grounds to say that it doesn't exist, considering things like ideas are also intangible, yet ideas are one set of things that runs the world we live in (it was someone's idea/opinion to colonize Africa as an example).

That said, and to fuel a point from CPT in a different way, the self that was stolen from is not attached to itself, nor that which was stolen from them, and as such in a certain phenomenological way, doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

Sorry, I derailed this slightly, just something that's been on my mind a lot. I also tend to see things in paradox (and not in a bad way; actually, neither good nor bad, just "what it is".

Also, you can rationalize anything, but if using a standard logic system, you can't necessarily "logic" anything.

One love

I sometimes tend to see it as there being more than a mere self and the self being a mere reference point which allows us to relate to the world. The denial of self in this case is the denial of a certain conception of self, the one which posits an individual entity distinct and separate from the rest, which exists for and of itself. On the other hand, the self being a mere reference point also does not necessarily posit a reality independent of the self, in which the self merely fulfills an arbitrary role, rather, entire realities come into being because of a particular point of reference. Every single point of reference creates a unique way to relate to every other point and vice versa.

Well said. There are many reasons I think there should be an expansion rather than a delimiting of the idea. It experiences, is experienced, and is brought about to awareness through experience. A set point that is able to experience.

I do agree partly with denying that any individual is brought about by their own means, but I do think that in a gestalt of something interconnected, distinction (such as distinct parts) can be seen, and in this way the self is distinct from another self. They're still interconnected, either directly or indirectly through series.

As a result, one way I like to think about the self is as a stream (like stream of consciousness) that is a complex braid.

It's an echo chamber of sorts, a very complex one.

One love

This is definitely a topic that could fill ten wikis lol.

To simplify it as much as possible...

In the first turning of the wheel there was no concept of Emptiness, more or less, other than a vague idea of "cessation" of karma. Therevada Buddhism focuses on non-attachment as the antidote to suffering.

In the second turning of the wheel Shakyamuni Buddha taught the two Emptiness, this becomes the Mahayana teachings. It is relatively straight forward put in the second turning sutras that subject/object and the whole idea of a self are illusory and "thought-only" -- having no true existence. However it's important to highlight that Emptiness does not mean nothingness, that would fall into the extreme of nihilism. Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness, as famously quoted from the heart sutra. To say that there are thousands of pages elaborating what it means to not fall into the eight extremes would be an understatement. It's like a funhouse of mirrors always pointing you back to "don't think about it and you'll experience it".

In the third turning of the wheel Shakyamuni taught Buddha nature in a way that seemed to almost contradict the first two turnings of the wheel. Emptiness was less emphasized by not falling into the eight extremes and more by non-dual awareness. A good example of this is Samantabhadra, being the primordial Buddha, who's body is defined as all of existence, his speech being all sounds and expressions, and his mind being I guess you could say in modern terms "the collective unconscious". In the third turning it is said that from a Buddha's perspective there are no Buddhas and there are no sentient beings -- there is just a gestalt of happening (paraphrased).

The third turning is generally not taught until someone has practiced the mahayana path of the second turning -- because it tends to have the same effect as ego death with psychedelics "I am God, I am everything, therefore nothing matters". This isn't the intended fruition though lol.

All in all... If you want to get a "complete overview" of the different ways Emptiness is presented, I would recommend Padmasabhava's "A garland of views" -- as it lays out the different schools of thought and how they relate to Emptiness.

Going to drop a few screenshots for examples of third turning of the wheel teachings

Thank you for sharing and the book recommendation CPT. I appreciate this conversation, as these are things that I think about often, but rarely have anyone who I can speak to in-depth about it.

I think one of the reasons that this is important to me is not only out of the pursuit of self-discovery and "enlightenment" (a pursuit), but because the idea of not having a self has done a bit of damage for me, partly due to misunderstanding on my part perhaps.

I'm glad that you brought up the idea of Emptiness as well as the education regarding the turning of the wheel in how and when certain principles are taught.

I find that the Buddhist notion of Emptiness oddly mirrors certain Greek ideas entailing change. The Buddhist idea of Emptiness, as I understand it, is stipulated due to the lack of permanence in all things. This impermanence comes about through change. Change is constant. Change keeps things empty. But something must exist for change to keep empty, so Emptiness is something.



Which could be mirrored by "change is constant."



Perhaps this is me just needing to word things in a different way, but I see it more as that there is not as much separation as we feel we experience between the subject and object and that they are more intertwined and that what we say about it as such is context dependent. I would also not really say that things that are thought-only entailments are without "true existence" but are simply ineffable and ephemeral, part of the passage of energy.

Granted, I'm also one that sees the a duality as the oneness, paradoxically.

The third seems to appeal to determinism a lot, which for me determinism and freewill are antimonies together, so again, paradox.



Another paradox akin to Chinese finger cuffs; you have to push to pull your fingers out.

One love

Edit: I also meant to share this as I feel it is at least somewhat appropriate to the current discussion.

Hey I'm always down for a good satsang

I hope I didn't come off patronizing or implying that you have a wrong view. I think that your perspective is dope, and I hope that some of what I shared might be useful along your own path.


Indeed -- Emptiness is even presented as "spontaneity" in some tantras, to highlight the ever-changing gestalt of reality.



This is probably a healthier way to look at it than most western Buddhists do these days lol.

&& LOL totally didn't mean to turn this "fraud or no fraud" thread into "emptiness & self" but I very much enjoyed it

Fraud IS an opportunity.. pretty much constantly in some form or another. So everyone who says they would must be lying, or committing fraud.. or possibly committing fraud by lying.

Sell, to defraud is to make a choice, in this case to choose to take advantage of said opportunity to defraud.

One love

I try to review these from time to time.... not as a dogma but just as a check on my intentions and integrity...

The 42 Ideals of Ma'at

1. I honor virtue
2. I benefit with gratitude
3. I am peaceful
4. I respect the property of others
5. I affirm that all life is sacred
6. I give offerings that are genuine
7. I live in truth
8. I regard all altars with respect
9. I speak with sincerity
10. I consume only my fair share
11. I offer words of good intent
12. I relate in peace
13. I honor animals with reverence
14. I can be trusted
15. I care for the earth
16. I keep my own council
17. I speak positively of others
18. I remain in balance with my emotions
19. I am trustful in my relationships
20. I hold purity in high esteem
21. I spread joy
22. I do the best I can
23. I communicate with compassion
24. I listen to opposing opinions
25. I create harmony
26. I invoke laughter
27. I am open to love in various forms
28. I am forgiving
29. I am kind
30. I act respectfully
31. I am accepting
32. I follow my inner guidance
33. I converse with awareness
34. I do good
35. I give blessings
36. I keep the waters pure
37. I speak with good intent
38. I praise the Goddess and the God
39. I am humble
40. I achieve with integrity
41. I advance through my own abilities
42. I embrace the All

Hmm, I think the necessity would have to outweigh the effort involved. And above all, the most moral option would take precedence. This heightens the effort. It's much harder to extort money from a selfish person than a kind one.

I think it's less a thing of morally right or wrong, because I believe that's situational - and more a question of how bad you need some money.

Sounds like too much work for me.

Look at how the fractional banking system is set up and you can see a systemic fraudulent mechanism at work.

Before one can answer the OP question, one would have to first accurately define fraud.

Does it apply only to financial transactions? Can one be defrauded from their Now-time? Is it fraud if it is legal? Is it part of 'good' or part of 'bad'? And when?

To me this is one of those dual options again, it is too binary, so the answer is the 'third option'.

Fraud is a figment of the imagination, created by the collective system, and therefore the word in itself is questionable.


So Flux with joy and enjoy the Now.