Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Lay vows, precepts that ask for something but stop short of renunciation
matthewmartin
Amateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
in Meditation
My google fu is failing me. (Kung fu is Shaolin fighting, Shaolin is a Zen temple, google fu is buddhist internet search). I'm researching lay vows.
So far I found-
The lay vows (No stealing, no lying, no foolin' around, no boozing, no killing) are asking me to not do things I wasn't doing already. It seems that for most people think that the lay practitioner is only expected to follow these rules to the same stringency required by secular law, (i.e. the Ohio Revised Code Suttra, a little known terma kept in Ohio for safe keeping for 2500 years).
I keep coming to the concept that if one subscribes to an ethical system and there is no change, no transformation, nothing, that that is a sign of complacency (and possibly antinomianism).
So the 5 precepts, are too little. It's like an ancient Buddhist monk listening to an illiterate lay follower who wants to be more Buddhist and this is what that monk thought the illiterate, superstitious (i.e. still occupied with pre-Buddhist folk religion), laity could deal with (i.e. "be a good Buddhist, just give us breakfast, lunch and don't break the law.")
The full vows (vinaya & Boddhisatva vows) seem to be a mishmash of
- renunciation incompatible with lay life (no family, no working, no possessions)-- The 8 vows seem to fall into this category, where a lay follower takes a 2 week vacation at a monastery and pretends they don't have a family, job or house to take care of in 2 weeks.
- defense of the institution (no slandering the Sangha! no criticizing the Sangha! No promotion of flavors of Buddhism different than the institution's flavor!)
- alien decorum (how to take care of your bowl, what to wear, what furniture to use)
The 10 precepts and 48 minor, the 200-250 odd vinaya rules are too much noise for practical use by a lay follower.
Surely there are re-formulations that ask for something of lay followers, but stop short of calling for liquidation?
So far I found-
The lay vows (No stealing, no lying, no foolin' around, no boozing, no killing) are asking me to not do things I wasn't doing already. It seems that for most people think that the lay practitioner is only expected to follow these rules to the same stringency required by secular law, (i.e. the Ohio Revised Code Suttra, a little known terma kept in Ohio for safe keeping for 2500 years).
I keep coming to the concept that if one subscribes to an ethical system and there is no change, no transformation, nothing, that that is a sign of complacency (and possibly antinomianism).
So the 5 precepts, are too little. It's like an ancient Buddhist monk listening to an illiterate lay follower who wants to be more Buddhist and this is what that monk thought the illiterate, superstitious (i.e. still occupied with pre-Buddhist folk religion), laity could deal with (i.e. "be a good Buddhist, just give us breakfast, lunch and don't break the law.")
The full vows (vinaya & Boddhisatva vows) seem to be a mishmash of
- renunciation incompatible with lay life (no family, no working, no possessions)-- The 8 vows seem to fall into this category, where a lay follower takes a 2 week vacation at a monastery and pretends they don't have a family, job or house to take care of in 2 weeks.
- defense of the institution (no slandering the Sangha! no criticizing the Sangha! No promotion of flavors of Buddhism different than the institution's flavor!)
- alien decorum (how to take care of your bowl, what to wear, what furniture to use)
The 10 precepts and 48 minor, the 200-250 odd vinaya rules are too much noise for practical use by a lay follower.
Surely there are re-formulations that ask for something of lay followers, but stop short of calling for liquidation?
0
Comments
Okay, so let's say you really are that good. Then I would ask not about some formal Buddhist recipe, but I would ask you to think long and hard about making your own ethical platform based on Buddhist principles. Forgot about what Monk Bob says. What do you say is important your path?
For example, a rule about ahimsa that says take the bugs out of the house rather than killing them-- that is a rule that is observable, go beyond secular civil law, doesn't require liquidating my house and possessions.
I'm not so much here to convince anyone that they should or shouldn't get excited about the 5 precepts, I'm looking for modern formulations of the precepts & the vinaya in the same way that the Chinese created the Brahma Net Sutra when they the realized that Indian sramana vinaya wasn't going to fly in ancient China. I very much doubt that the Chinese dropped 200+ rules from the vinaya because they thought they were so awesome. They rewrote the rule list because they realized that it was unworkable.
the 5 precepts are to be seen as a MINIMUM if you are serious with regards to dhamma practice. If you feel you can live in lay life with the 8 or 10( I'm fairly sure thats more common in the Zen tradition, very rare in Theravada), then do so. I have had times in my lay life where I attempted to follow the 8, that can be very hard and didn't last very long. The Buddha never really taught for lay followers to do much more then the basic 5 precepts in addition to dhamma practice.(sila, samadhi, panna)
Also try not simplify the 5 precepts, there is MUCH more involved in each one rather then " don't do x, don't do y".
1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the training rule to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the training rule to refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the training rule to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the training rule to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.
notice "incorrect speech" being WAY more then just "don't lie" , I'm not going to go into a discourse on what the buddha taught as beneficial speech, but it all fits under this.
also sexual misconduct is often a mistranslation of sorts.. it's really SENSUAL misconduct, any kind of abuse related to the 6 senses.
and lastly there is such a thing as the 8 lifetime precepts(started by Bhante G), which are an expanded version of the 5 precepts with right livelihood put in. taking these 8 lifetime precepts is how I was given the pali name Jayantha(which would actually become my monastic name as well if I follow through with ordination)
Of course we must hold ourselves to a high level or we will not be successful. This is the development of Bodhicitta or an enlightened mind which cares for others.
Stay straight, develop merit and learn for the sake of others. Good Luck, Dennis
Take the one about abstaining from intoxicants, for instance. Yes, one might say that you are keeping this precept if you merely don't use alchohol, tobacco or any other mood altering substance. However, it seems to me that the spirit of this precept is to not do anything that distracts you from the here and now and, therefore, the Buddhist path.
If viewed that way, then an awful lot of what we do can be considered an "intoxicant". Mindless entertainment, excessive shopping, empty socializing, self-centered hobbies-- all of those can distract us and drive us deeper into the narrow confines of our false selves. I don't think I know a single person who doesn't intoxicate themselves in this way, at least once in a while.
Or how about the precept about not stealing? It's pretty easy not to steal in the legal sense of the word (if you are not poor, that is) but legality is a man-made construct that shifts about with time. So I really doubt that the Buddha meant to say that we should just follow the law, whatever it happens to be at the moment. With regard to stealing, an argument can be made that the modern financial capitalism is a scheme for transferring resources from the poor to the rich without rewarding the former adequately. If so, it is a form of stealing. If this argument seems like an overkill, reflect on the following: why is it that a lawyer who deals with paperwork for large corporations has two big modern houses while a worker from Mexico who grows his lettuce lives in a tiny overcrowded shack that's falling apart?
Then, all of us who live in the Western countries and enjoy their high standard of living are implicated in stealing, some more and some less. Shopping choices, career choices and lifestyle choices we make make us thiefs to greater or lesser degrees. We have to make these choices on a regular basis. If we think hard about what those choices entail in the grand scheme of things, they suddenly become very hard choices. Once again, if the precept about stealing is to be viewed in this way, I'm not sure that I know anyone who keeps it 100%.
Similar reasoning applies to the remaining three precepts. In my understanding, Buddhism is all about investigating deeply and looking at the big picture. Then, 5 precepts are excruciatingly hard to keep. They are like the sky-- you keep striving for it but never reach it.
I think your writing here is excellent, although I disagree slightly about things distracting us from "the path" being intoxicants. Every moment of life is not about being on the path. Life is also about every day just living.
re: property.
This morning I was speculating on what the Buddhist approach to slavery would be. Historically, Buddhist individuals and institutions have not had a good record-- they have at various points in history and place exclude slaves from joining the Sangha, monasteries that owned slaves (in China). There are examples of modern slave activists that "steal" slaves from their owners than then attempt to re-hab them (i.e. taken what was not given). If the very definition of property takes an individual to decide what is property, then an individual can choose what ever. You own a lot, that's unfair as I own little, so no harm if I take it, right? You own a slave, the slave isn't property in my jurisdiction, so no harm if I take it, right? For ethical behavior to emerge out these choices, some ethical principle would have to be nailed down to decide what is property.
I can't say I have solved the riddle yet, but I'm working on seeing if compassion can be used as a "rule-generator", so on the topic of property and economic relationships. The slave is holding back the owner's enlightenment, so taking the slave helps them both.
re: distribution of property
I'm not sure what a Buddhist approach to distribution is-- if owning a lot of loot is a burden to the owner & hindrance to enlightenment, then re-distribution just moves the burden to others. If owning a lot of loot is a boon, then why did the Buddha put such harsh limits on the number of items a monk owned? I suppose if I take the implicit theme about drugs & alcohol (don't do them because the interfere with the practice of Buddhism), then maybe the ethical distribution and production system is the one that enables the practice of Buddhism. So raising the minimum wage at Walmart would be a Buddhist policy, since if you're a wage slave, you don't have the leisure to think about enlightenment.
For me, the hard part about the precepts is precisely having to figure out what they mean for me, right here and right now. There is a lot of uncertainty once you start digging. And dealing with uncertainty is a major path of Practice.
I have to be stern with my 3 year old daughter at least once a day for my family's (and her) benefit.
Does this fall into the category of harsh speech?
Let's take an extreme example -- but a very Buddhist one -- a mother is harshly reprimanding her 3 year old son for trying to pick up a cobra. I'd say go at it harshly!
I'm reading the Shingon 10 precepts, which appear to be adapted for lay purpose, the familiar 5 are there and the rest are filled in with language related precepts (and a request to not be hateful or lose sight of the Dharma)
4 I will not tell a lie.
5 I will not exaggerate or gossip.
6 I will not speak abusively.
7 I will not equivocate.
So from the Shingon standpoint, speech acts were a big part of lay ethics.