Comparing the Precepts to the Commandments

I have read on a few websites that the Precepts are very different from the Ten Commandments of Christianity, in that the precepts are not strictly necessary to follow in every, single thing you do, because unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no God against which one can sin.

This make sense, but is it true? If it is true, to what extant are the Five Precepts meant to be followed?

I have read on a few websites that the Precepts are very different from the Ten Commandments of Christianity, in that the precepts are not strictly necessary to follow in every, single thing you do, because unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no God against which one can sin.

This make sense, but is it true? If it is true, to what extant are the Five Precepts meant to be followed?

They are meant to be followed such that one avert harm. But they are not the will of a deity.

@jeffrey Then the buddhists that drink alcohol, for example: what would they say of the fifth Precept? Would they perhaps simply say that they drink only in moderation, so it causes no harm?

I'm just curious. Thank you!

@peyruckus this is one of the issues that I find most unsettling in this forum. I look forward to the responses.

The precepts are helpful lessons, not rules such as the 10 commandments. Much like "don't put your hand in fire" "don't punch yourself in the face" or "don't wipe with your butt with sand paper" are helpful lessons.

In my opinion.... to the beginner, they're often viewed as a guide on a path of wellness. To the advanced, they're "why in the world would I want to do that?"

@amatt What would you consider to be advanced, as far as buddhism goes?

The ten commandments can be summed up in : "love the lord, your God, with all your strenght, might, mind, heart and soul AND love your neighbor (everyone else) as yourself."

That's my two cents.

People interpret the 5th differently. Some take it to mean it's ok to drink so long as you don't drink to the point of "heedlessness", the term used in the precept. Others take it to mean no drinking, period. No drugs either.

Whether or not there's a deity against whom to sin isn't relevant. They're guidelines to help us avoid doing harm, but we're expected to use discernment as to how to apply them. The standard example about breaking them is: do you lie when the Gestapo arrives at the door asking if there are Jews hidden in your house. Of course you lie, because your lie will save lives. Saving lives is a greater good than keeping the precept against lying. But any decision to transgress a precept is to be weighed carefully and sincerely, and the issue shouldn't come up very often.

The bigger question seems to be: if you take a precept, are you expected to keep it, or is it ok to try and fail repeatedly? Some say it's best to only take precepts you know you can keep, and take them seriously, rather than regard them more casually. This is what generates the most debate.

Welcome to our humble forum, peyruckus.

I answered that question! Advanced buddhist seems a silly notion... I mean advanced in the recognition of the precepts.

@dakini Great post — thank you very much. :)

Heaven is not eternal in Buddhism. If your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, you will go to a desirable place. If your only wish is to be reborn as a human on earth, you can simply live a normal life, and you will be here again. Whatever your wish may be, be it enlightenment, heaven realm or human realm, the precepts are your guide. They are as important as your desired destination, and as how you want them to be.

driedleaf said:

They are as important as your desired destination, and as how you want them to be.

What an interesting and sensible perspective. I haven't heard this one before. :) Good go, leaf!

Comparing the Precepts to the Commandments? Well, let's explore that.

The Commandments are demands from God. You obey them because God will punish you and your people if you do not, and if He doesn't punish you in this life, there is judgement awaiting. Besides, His worldly authority acting in His name certainly will punish you since God tends to smite entire populations for disobedience. A case might be made that some of the laws protect people from each other's sinful nature, but again what the laws mostly do is define behavior that is reserved for God alone. You may not kill, but God certainly does. You may not steal, but God owns the entire world and can give and take away as He pleases.

The Precepts are vows taken voluntarily to limit one's behavior in an attempt to make oneself a better person. The Vows are warning lights set against our mind's tendency to justify our actions when driven by our desires and result in behavior that causes suffering. They are planted in front of common emotions that drive these desires: anger, lust, greed, fear, etc. If you are a monk, the price of joining the temple and donning the robe is to keep a certain number of vows, to obstain from certain behavior, and punishment might extend to being expelled from the Sangha in the worse cases. As lay Buddhist, the Precepts are a thumbnail version of behavior that is necessary to even begin to practice Buddhism. To argue against the Precepts being important is to argue that the 8-Fold Path is not important. It IS being a Buddhist. Whatever you call yourself, if you don't attempt to follow some version of the Precepts in your daily life, you are not practicing Buddhism.

What they have in common is a prohibition against the universal tendency to selfish behavior that hurts others and puts your own desires above those of other people. In the case of the Commandments, that includes putting your own desires above God's will.

I see them as the same things which have the same purpose, other than the devotional ones of the 10 commandments. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, etc, etc, are the same in essence. Breaking them has the same effect and keeping them has the same effect.

peyruckus said:

If it is true, to what extant are the Five Precepts meant to be followed?

They are definitely meant to be followed. Ethical behaviour is the foundation of Buddhist practice.

Spiny

Cinorjer said:

The Commandments are demands from God. You obey them because God will punish you and your people if you do not [...]

The Precepts are vows taken voluntarily to limit one's behavior in an attempt to make oneself a better person. [...]

For me, it really is just that simple. "Commands" vs. "voluntary vows."

Nice post Cinorjer.

BonsaiDoug said:

For me, it really is just that simple. "Commands" vs. "voluntary vows."

I'm not sure it's that clear cut. I suspect a lot of Christians would say they've chosen to follow the commandments because it's the right way to live.

Spiny

SpinyNorman said:

BonsaiDoug said:

For me, it really is just that simple. "Commands" vs. "voluntary vows."

I'm not sure it's that clear cut. I suspect a lot of Christians would say they've chosen to follow the commandments because it's the right way to live.

Spiny

Ah, but in their case, they simply have no choice. As far as I know, Christians/Catholics must accept the commandments as part of their religion. True, they may also feel in their hearts they have chosen to follow them voluntarily, but the commandments are, to my understanding, something that is required. You must follow them under certain penalties from a deity they have also chosen to follow. That's why they are called the ten "commandments" and not the ten "suggestions."

I ran out of edit time in the above post.

I guess my main point is... the commandments, no matter if you accept them voluntarily or not, are "rules" of the religion, and must be followed. The precepts are not "rules" which have been mandated by Buddhism. I'm not sure a Christian can arbitrarily follow whichever of the commandments they choose. They are rules whose violation is a punishable offense. Although I do realize many Buddhists feel that violation of the Precepts will result in karma which will have to be dealt with at some point in time.

SpinyNorman said:

BonsaiDoug said:

For me, it really is just that simple. "Commands" vs. "voluntary vows."

I'm not sure it's that clear cut. I suspect a lot of Christians would say they've chosen to follow the commandments because it's the right way to live.

Spiny

I'm not sure any Christian I know would put it that way. Of course they would say it's the right way to live, because we should obey God's commandments. Why should we obey God's commandments? Because He's God, and they are His Commandments! The Book of Job explored the entire concept of justice and fairness from God expects from us, and came to the conclusion that (1) Unless you are capable of comprehending God's will, then (2) shut up and obey.

Buddhist teachings provide you with a framework for you to make your own decision - akin to an intellectual pill.

Commandements are prohibitions.

Suppose Buddhism is akin to discipline with understanding and by choice - commandments are akin to discipline with fear of retribution.

Train your dog by a clicker and treats or with a scolding voice and a rolled up newspaper?

Cinorjer said:

Comparing the Precepts to the Commandments? Well, let's explore that.

The Commandments are demands from God. You obey them because God will punish you and your people if you do not, and if He doesn't punish you in this life, there is judgement awaiting. Besides, His worldly authority acting in His name certainly will punish you since God tends to smite entire populations for disobedience. A case might be made that some of the laws protect people from each other's sinful nature, but again what the laws mostly do is define behavior that is reserved for God alone. You may not kill, but God certainly does. You may not steal, but God owns the entire world and can give and take away as He pleases.

The Precepts are vows taken voluntarily to limit one's behavior in an attempt to make oneself a better person. The Vows are warning lights set against our mind's tendency to justify our actions when driven by our desires and result in behavior that causes suffering. They are planted in front of common emotions that drive these desires: anger, lust, greed, fear, etc. If you are a monk, the price of joining the temple and donning the robe is to keep a certain number of vows, to obstain from certain behavior, and punishment might extend to being expelled from the Sangha in the worse cases. As lay Buddhist, the Precepts are a thumbnail version of behavior that is necessary to even begin to practice Buddhism. To argue against the Precepts being important is to argue that the 8-Fold Path is not important. It IS being a Buddhist. Whatever you call yourself, if you don't attempt to follow some version of the Precepts in your daily life, you are not practicing Buddhism.

What they have in common is a prohibition against the universal tendency to selfish behavior that hurts others and puts your own desires above those of other people. In the case of the Commandments, that includes putting your own desires above God's will.

Please note that you are portraying the Old Testament approach to things, and many modern churches rarely teach from the Old Testament.

BonsaiDoug said:

For me, it really is just that simple. "Commands" vs. "voluntary vows."

I can see that, however the Commandments supposedly involve punishment, while the Precepts involve karma.

vinlyn said:

Please note that you are portraying the Old Testament approach to things, and many modern churches rarely teach from the Old Testament.

Well, yes, Christians have a further layer of Salvation and but are quick to revert back to the OT God of Punishment when it comes to condemnation. It's the Christians demanding the Commandments be posted on government property, not the Jews. I suppose it depends on the church, but fundamentalists actually teach more from the OT than the new because the socialist teachings of Jesus kinda bother them.

But really, it's hard to compare the two, the Precepts and Commandments, because they deal with two different things, like apples and oranges. The Commandments deal with sin, which is disobeying God's will. The Precepts deal with actions that lead to suffering. Their authority comes from two entirely different directions. A Christian would and does claim the Buddhist Precepts are perhaps a well meant attempt, but nontheless a doomed failure to apply morality to life, because all morality comes from God and suffering is because of our original sin and only God can decide who does and does not suffer in this life. To them, the Precepts are only trying to substitute "good deeds" for salvation, and they have plenty of teachings about the folly of doing that. It's simply a vastly different worldview.

@Cinorjer said "Well, yes, Christians have a further layer of Salvation and but are quick to revert back to the OT God of Punishment when it comes to condemnation. It's the Christians demanding the Commandments be posted on government property, not the Jews. I suppose it depends on the church, but fundamentalists actually teach more from the OT than the new because the socialist teachings of Jesus kinda bother them.

But really, it's hard to compare the two, the Precepts and Commandments, because they deal with two different things, like apples and oranges. The Commandments deal with sin, which is disobeying God's will. The Precepts deal with actions that lead to suffering. Their authority comes from two entirely different directions. A Christian would and does claim the Buddhist Precepts are perhaps a well meant attempt, but nontheless a doomed failure to apply morality to life, because all morality comes from God and suffering is because of our original sin and only God can decide who does and does not suffer in this life. To them, the Precepts are only trying to substitute "good deeds" for salvation, and they have plenty of teachings about the folly of doing that. It's simply a vastly different worldview."

Since returning to the States for the past two years, in addition to my regular meditations, I also attend a Methodist church about once a month. I've yet to hear a single reading or message from the Old Testament, and no talk of punishment or condemnation...and this is relatively fundamentalist Colorado Springs.

It seems to me you put an awfully lot of words in an awfully lot of Christian mouths.

peyruckus said:

@jeffrey Then the buddhists that drink alcohol, for example: what would they say of the fifth Precept? Would they perhaps simply say that they drink only in moderation, so it causes no harm?

I'm just curious. Thank you!

It's not easy to change your lifestyle. And sometimes it takes more than just "I vow not to drink alcohol" to accomplish the change. If it were that simple the 12 step programs would all be empty and the betty ford clinic would not exist. Some buddhists say maybe that person is not a buddhist. Ok but they can still benefit from the part other than the drinking vow. For example they could study and meditate.

It's kind of like you are a butcher and you have a family to support. You might never become a buddhist at all if it meant you just had to hop up and quit your job. But you can practice the part of buddhism that you are prepared to follow.

Another example is people who do not want to meditate. You could say they are not buddhist I think equally easy as saying a person who does not follow the precepts is not buddhist. You could also say that those unable to meditate one hour every day are not buddhist, because they will probably not accomplish anything with their meditation other than prepare them for a later time when they have more interest, perhaps in the next lifetime. I'm being a little harsh because it annoys me when the "you are not a buddhist" police get on their high horse. Actually I don't see any reason other than ego to call someone not a buddhist.

So the person may drink alcohol. But if they do they are going to experience all the karmic consequences such as a hangover or less resources or not being able to meditate because the evening is devoted to partying.

Also as Dakini said some people take the vow of the fifth precept but they interpret it to mean drinking to the point of heedlessness. I think everyone will agree that the precepts are meant to be helpful, but some people will accurately comment that even one glass of wine affects the mind.

@vinlyn, I only repeat what I hear from the many conversations I have with the Preachers and Christian evangelists who tried to convert me over the years, most of them people I've known since I was a child. But in no way is this anything other than mainstream doctrine and it's not a critique. It's just the way Christianity views the world and our relationship to God. It might be that your church prefers to focus on the positive, and that's great.

Cinorjer said:

@vinlyn, I only repeat what I hear from the many conversations I have with the Preachers and Christian evangelists who tried to convert me over the years, most of them people I've known since I was a child.

This is what I keep wondering about. Why is evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity the norm for so many people here? I think vinlyn made a good point: mainstream Christianity generally takes a different, more mellow approach to the Commandments, in the same way that it focuses more on the New Testament than the Old. As someone here put it awhile ago, they prefer the concept of a warm-and-fuzzy God rather than a stern, punishing God. I actually did attend an Episcopalian church a few times as a kid. It was very low-key, nothing like the descriptions people here have given of Christianity.

I think Christians don't like the idea that Jesus was the first one to introduce the father God. They want a history going back all the way to the first man complete with prophesy and so forth. But they don't usually talk about the behaviour of Yahweh. It's a little bit like the mahayana and theravada only in the sense of the later tradition wanting to connect to the past history.

You know, there's another thread currently active about how judgmental Christians are about Buddhists. Now "we" are being judgmental about Christians. Do unto others...oops, I guess that's not a Buddhist principle.

In all likelyhood you are correct.

vinlyn said:

Do unto others...oops, I guess that's not a Buddhist principle.

Sure it is, it's filed under "compassion". :)

The difference I see is the "Thou shall not" , as a command, versus- it wouldn't help you progress in your path... A guide for your progression vs a command.

Dakini said:

vinlyn said:

Do unto others...oops, I guess that's not a Buddhist principle.

Sure it is, it's filed under "compassion". :)

Sort of reminds me about all the files we used to keep in my school that were never referenced.

vinlyn said:

You know, there's another thread currently active about how judgmental Christians are about Buddhists. Now "we" are being judgmental about Christians. Do unto others...oops, I guess that's not a Buddhist principle.

Judgemental in what way? I'm not saying all Christians want to hit you over the head with stone tablets. Their religion says only Christians are going to Heaven (and maybe some Jews) and they want to save me from Hell. That compassionate concern for my soul doesn't make them bad people. It's not being a bad person to worship God, when you believe that God created the universe. It's being obedient to how you are supposed to behave. I respect that from them, from Muslims, from anyone who lives their beliefs.

Last time I checked, Methodists of all types still believed that the only way to get to Heaven is by accepting Christ as your Savior. So unless you've done that, they believe you and I are going to Hell. That makes them wrong in my opinion, but not bad people. If they don't believe I'm going to Hell for not becoming a Christian, then they are the ones that have a problem with their religious beliefs, not me.

You see, I'm in a very advantageous position here. I find a great deal of wisdom in many aspects of Buddhism. And I find a great deal of wisdom in many aspects of Christianity. I don't accept either carte blanche.

And to be honest, most Christians that I know do not accept all aspects of Christian beliefs carte blanche. And yet, some posters on the forum like to paint all Christians as wild fundamentalists. There is a tremendously broad spectrum of beliefs within the Christian community. Yes, I have met Christians who adamantly believe that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, that you are not going to heaven. But I have met more Christians who believe that's just the "my religion is better than your religion hype" that is a part of all religions. 76% of Americans call themselves Christians, yet only 41% of Americans go to church regularly (whatever regularly means).

On this forum, everyone seems to say how important the Five Precepts are, yet over and over we have discussions first about whether the Precepts are rules or suggestions. Then, more threads that can't agree on the meaning of Precepts 1, 4, and 5. We debate about what comes after nibanna, yet can't agree whether it's reincarnation or rebirth. Some here believe that the Buddhist scriptures are the exact teachings of Buddha, while others of us say, nonsense, those scriptures were written a hundred or more years after Buddha's death, and only after many years of words being passed on only orally. We can't even agree on which school of Buddhism -- Theravada, Mahāyāna, or Vajrayāna -- is right.

And so yet, even though Christians can't agree on what is right, they want to go out and tell others what is right. And, even though Buddhists can't agree on what is right, they want to go out and tell others what is right. There is no wisdom is that approach, no matter what "side" is doing it.

Christians ought to respect Buddhists.
Buddhists ought to respect Christians.

Nice post. Maybe it would be useful when expressing ourselves to say 'some christians' and so forth. Because each person's view(s) and needs are different.

peyruckus said:

I have read on a few websites that the Precepts are very different from the Ten Commandments of Christianity, in that the precepts are not strictly necessary to follow in every, single thing you do, because unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no God against which one can sin.

This make sense, but is it true? If it is true, to what extant are the Five Precepts meant to be followed?

Precepts are prescribed for people who take refuge in the three jewels (the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha). Taking a refuge is very, very different from taking protection, which is what monotheistic worshippers prefer. There is no concept of protection in Buddhism, as the Buddha cannot shield anyone from the consequences of their karma.

But if you take refuge in the three jewels, you're expressing an intention to engage in the Buddhist experiment -- see how far can you get by undertaking to lead a fully moral life. According to the Buddha's promise, fruits of leading a noble, moral life are swift to arrive in the here and now. He was thus inviting everybody to come and see for themselves. The only thing where the Buddhist practice could possibly be of any relevance is if the practitioners feel for themselves, on their own skin so to speak, the beneficial fruits of such practice. Otherwise, the practice itself would be pointless, as we are not trying to please or appease any higher being who would have any jurisdiction over our destiny.

So, as you can see, very different from the 10 commandments.