Best Of

@SuraShine said:
So be clear, is it semantics linguistically for you or is it guidance vs commands/rules?

Edit - so I re-read your OP rigidly again. Your question above to me seems like a loaded gun. Hindus believe in Atman and a creator, Buddhism teaches anatman and no creator. My personal opinion - AGAIN - is that the Buddha himself has put the 5 precepts in place for a very good reason (after all, he is awake yes?). So if I am following his teachings seriously, I will take the Precepts seriously - as I previously stated. It seems like a logical progression for anyone seriously journeying this path. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ones to choose

To me it is more than semantics.

Let me put it this way. Before retiring I was a school principal. The vast majority of the time, when dealing with teachers, I made suggestions: "You might want to think about...", "You might want to try...", "You might want to consider...", and so forth. On rare occasions I would have to say something along the lines of, "Here is what I am requiring you to do, and if you fail to do it, there will be disciplinary consequences". As far as the Five Precepts go, I would say that I strongly follow four of them, and there is one -- that would depend on how you want to define it -- that perhaps I'm not as good at as I should be. But the difference is, I don't believe that I am going to be literally punished by an authority figure for not fully fulfilling one Precept; instead I realize that cause and effect (karma) may result in occasionally a bit of suffering that if I were more careful I might have avoided. To me, as a former christian, the Ten Commandments indicated an order ("Thou shalt not...") followed by punishment.

I think perhaps it might be a mistake to measure the Precepts against the 10 Commandments. Smoke and mirrors? Apples and oranges? I dunno, maybe both.

If you take a rudimentary glance at the 10 Commandments, they're pretty Kick-ass, and, apparently, transmitted from an entity with a massive Egotist problem.
Thou shalt, thou shalt not... (Shall being the imperative, will being the suggestive... Curiously in the first person, it's the other way round... I WILL, You SHALL.... Sorry.... I digress....)
It depends also whether the transmission of the precepts (which existed before the Bible became a written transmission) is done in Pali, or in Hindi/urdu or whichever language a particular Hindu speaks.

Lost in translation?

Just a view from here but we don't really have to try and keep to the precepts. There is no deity that will punish us if we know better but still do something unskillful. Just like no deity will punish us for burning the lentils. The lentils will simply be burned for our lack of attention.

If we go against the precepts, we have a smaller chance at awakening. Any given action can bring us closer or further away.

@SuraShine said:
I have always vehemently disagreed with the argument people put forth for excusing drug use and the Fifth Precept (another thread, another debate).

I feel the same way about the First and eating meat but we can only control what we do. Living by example is always better than preaching.

So be clear, is it semantics linguistically for you or is it guidance vs commands/rules?

Edit - so I re-read your OP rigidly again. Your question above to me seems like a loaded gun. Hindus believe in Atman and a creator, Buddhism teaches anatman and no creator. My personal opinion - AGAIN - is that the Buddha himself has put the 5 precepts in place for a very good reason (after all, he is awake yes?). So if I am following his teachings seriously, I will take the Precepts seriously - as I previously stated. It seems like a logical progression for anyone seriously journeying this path. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ones to choose

For every party there's a party pooper.

Perhaps even folks who have taken and have tried to live by the 16 precepts for the last 49 years, think that it's the actualization of such vows, and not a perfect description of them, that's important.
Whether directed externally or internally, only in this one fleeting moment, can you become a manifestation of those vows or not. With the next nanosecond, another chance to renew such precepts is offered endlessly again....& again.

There may well be as many different motivations to follow one's vows or precepts or commandments as there are people.
Divide off those motivations and categorize them according to your chosen values if you must
but remember that even with such vows whenever they are clung to, rejected or deliberately ignored, they inevitably bring to fruition, the seeds of our own suffering.

Are precepts commandments?
Is Buddhism Christianity?

In my view the difference between precepts and commandments follows from the differences in how we view the religion/philosophy: In Christianity, there is a god (or maybe three), and he is authoritarian and issues commandments. Buddha specifically said he isn't a god, he is awake.

Do all Christians follow all the commandments (can they even name them all without looking them up)? Do all Buddhists follow all the precepts? So, as a practical matter, is there actually a difference between the two?

Hey vinlyn!

To me it seems pretty clear that they are meant as trainings to help us develop spiritually. If the purpose of the teachings is enlightenment then to that end its important for us to learn and grow. Following rules doesn't really get us there.

In terms of karma and multiple lives. Strictly following them would help ensure better future karma. But again, in terms of spiritual development, we need to gain wisdom and understanding so its important to understand the way cause and effect works regarding our actions around the precepts rather than following rules. Which isn't developing wisdom.