That's not what the Buddha professed to teach. He taught the illness (dukkha) and the cure for that illness (the eightfold path). A basic framework of ethics girds the path. Almost no one would argue with them: no lying, cheating on your spouse, killing, etc.
A fundamental misapprehension of these teachings is what gets people wound up. The Buddha's teachings are not going to answer if rent controls are good policy or not because the world in which the laity live is a stew for the perpetuation of dukkha. Certainly not lying, cheating or killing are all good principles for living a life of less dukkha but given the Buddha's observations that samsara has no beginning or end spending your life on answering if rent controls are good policy or not is doomed to be unlasting and unsatisfactory.
The dhamma is not to be realized through discursive thinking alone. It must be directly experienced. The Buddha invites anyone to practice the teachings and discover for themselves if they are bullshit or not. So sit and examine or don't. Throwing the teachings under the bus because people want to pull out the part they like and dump the rest is wrong practice and the Buddha was painstakingly clear on this.
> Almost no one would argue with them: no lying, cheating on your spouse, killing, etc.
None of these are sins in their absolute sense though, and this is what I am underlining, that you can't possibly create absolutist ethics in any way. Philosophy had created a lot of points of view on this, but none of them managed to create a consistent worldview that would work for any occasion.
Absolute sense meaning what? When engaged with they cause suffering. If you turn your mind inward one sees engaging with these acts almost instantaneously harms the doer as the victim.
This is not complicated. Trying to objectify these acts as anything but harmful is not helpful to you or anyone else. The next time you harm someone look closely at yourself first and observe the tumult of feelings that follow. Observing them closely, directly experience their result. Then you can know for yourself what the Buddha taught: evergreen wisdom that will remain applicable so long as people suffer anywhere.
We are not beings of pure intellect. That is complete folly. The mind is real, yes, but so is harm, pain, suffering, and craving. These are not abstract concepts. They can be directly known by anyone living. We must engage with the human faculties we are given and use them to understand our condition and the way leading out.
> Trying to objectify these acts as anything but harmful is not helpful to you or anyone else.
Is there any harm outside of the mind perceiving it? Can we talk about harm independent of causes and conditions? Could these actions be not harmful, or even skillful under certain conditions?
> The next time you harm someone look closely at yourself first and observe the tumult of feelings that follow.
What if there’s no tumult of feelings that follow?
A fundamental misapprehension of these teachings is what gets people wound up. The Buddha's teachings are not going to answer if rent controls are good policy or not because the world in which the laity live is a stew for the perpetuation of dukkha. Certainly not lying, cheating or killing are all good principles for living a life of less dukkha but given the Buddha's observations that samsara has no beginning or end spending your life on answering if rent controls are good policy or not is doomed to be unlasting and unsatisfactory.
The dhamma is not to be realized through discursive thinking alone. It must be directly experienced. The Buddha invites anyone to practice the teachings and discover for themselves if they are bullshit or not. So sit and examine or don't. Throwing the teachings under the bus because people want to pull out the part they like and dump the rest is wrong practice and the Buddha was painstakingly clear on this.