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.
Which of the 5 Buddhist precepts do you usually break?
Speach! Grr, I break this one all the time. I once paid a friend 1/2 Kuwaiti Dinar (about $1.75) for every bad word. I ended up paying him 35 dollars, that was just while in the office one day. I need to learn to watch my mouth. Sometimes I feel my point is not made without a good explative eeek.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
as long as you understand the projection is coming from you, not at you. nor is it inherent or self existing.
on another note: “Whether a deed is good, or becomes a sin, is difficult to determine. Some actions may appear righteous when the intention behind them is wrong. Likewise, an action may appear dishonorable, but may in some cases have a pure and innocent intention. Whether something is good or bad depends on the mind alone.”
The story is right yes. But many people misunderstand what the Buddhist "Middle Way" actually is.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."
The Buddhist "Middle way" is quite different from the normal usage of the word "middle". The Buddhist "middle way" is also quite difficult to follow and requires a good deal of consistent effort to practice properly. The Buddhist "middle way" does not deviate from the Eight fold path. The very phrase "middle way" is ascribed to the Buddha himself in his description of the Noble Eightfold Path as a path between the extremes of austerities (starving yourself, etc.) and sensual indulgence (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) The middle way is not the "easy way".
Rules are subject to interpretation. The 4NT and 8FP are what bring forth understanding and lead to awakening.
I treat the 5 precepts as a simple guide to not doing what does not help, not as rules that must be adhered to. But then, I'm not much of one to take vows so I can officially say I have joined the team. For example I stopped drinking. Not because of some rule, but because I developed enough feeble mindfulness to become aware that it was not helping and in fact was making things more difficult.
I think taking an insects life is ok as long as its not voluntary. We have pest control bait for mice and things. I eat factory farmed meat. I don't lie or steal. I don't take intoxicants other than coffee and tea. I don't have sex.
I can feel a greater purity in my meditation and peace of mind since I have purified my ethical behaviour so I think that part of the teaching is true in my experience.
Some people think that taking any form of life is bad and I wonder if one can take life involuntarily.Maybe, you mean this as in the case of using insectide and eating meat that has been prepared by others, in which case, it may be we are not responsible for the life being taken. Then, about intoxicants, indulging in them, coffee and tea included should have negative effects for all we know.
footiam, I was thinking along the lines of say you accidentally step on an insect. I have even killed insects because I am so large when trying to scoop them up to take them outside.
I use insecticide in cases of a terrible infestation, but it is better yet not to ever leave food or water out as much as possible. And keep food in tupperware in cabinets or otherwise away from insects.
For my hops I was using an organic insecticide and I guess I will suffer the karma.
Every spring I run into a problem with the first precept when the ants start their influx into the house. This year they started nesting inside the electrical box in the basement, which upped the stakes somewhat...
I do my best. Sadly, though, I have to say that every year I've ended up resorting to insectide at some point or another.
I have sex... I have marijuana... I sometimes drink or have a cigarette... I eat meat... I steal sometimes...
Eating meat and having sex isn't really against the 5 precepts for us lay practitioners. That is, unless you go around killing things so you can eat them or you cheat on your partner...:eek:
Personally, I found that with time it became easier to observe the precepts. When I first started practicing, it was pretty difficult to keep ANY of them. The only one I could honestly say that I kept was the first one, because I didn't purposely go around killing things lol. These days, however, I pretty much keep them all. I may be pretty lax with the fifth every once in a while because I may occasionally have a few beers after work - but its actually been quite some time. So for now, I haven't had a problem observing any of them.
footiam, I was thinking along the lines of say you accidentally step on an insect. I have even killed insects because I am so large when trying to scoop them up to take them outside.
I use insecticide in cases of a terrible infestation, but it is better yet not to ever leave food or water out as much as possible. And keep food in tupperware in cabinets or otherwise away from insects.
For my hops I was using an organic insecticide and I guess I will suffer the karma.
Maybe, we should forget about the little accidents in life and look at the bigger picture of life.
Maybe, we should not worry so much about the little accidents that you mentioned.
footiam, I was thinking along the lines of say you accidentally step on an insect. I have even killed insects because I am so large when trying to scoop them up to take them outside.
I use insecticide in cases of a terrible infestation, but it is better yet not to ever leave food or water out as much as possible. And keep food in tupperware in cabinets or otherwise away from insects.
For my hops I was using an organic insecticide and I guess I will suffer the karma.
Maybe, we should forget about the little accidents in life and look at the bigger picture of life.
Maybe, we should not worry so much about the little accidents that you mentioned.
Agreed. Remember our intentions count for something. I had/have an ant problem. They are eating my garden, they infested my rice cooker (I had to take it completely apart to clean them out) and they started for the fridge. This is because food is around and I live in the desert. I found that a feather duster is a humane way to move them on their way. Distract them with sugar water and slowly move it outside. I like the story that HHDL tells about his encounters with mosquitoes. We won't know what it is like to not cause harm until enlightenment.
i drink quite occasionally and have lots of sex. i usually don't kill insects unless by accident, nor do i steal things. lots of sex and alcohol! but i never took vow or precepts so
Sometimes I think if people want to do good things, just do it. What has vows got to do with it.
footiam, the vow has power. For example if I want to bring hotdogs to the picnic I might wimp out and show up with nothing. But if I tell Sally that I am bringing hotdogs to the picnic that has more power.
The vows can create positive or negative karma. The power amplifies the karma. If you break vows it is worse than if you had never taken them.
i drink quite occasionally and have lots of sex. i usually don't kill insects unless by accident, nor do i steal things. lots of sex and alcohol! but i never took vow or precepts so
While there can be debate in a couple of the Precepts about, for example, what is sentient life, I think general adherence to the 5 Precepts are pretty much the most basic adherence to Buddhist principles. I'm not talking here about you having lots of sex, since I don't know if it is appropriate or inappropriate (and I don't care to know). But you freely drink, and I don't even see wiggle room with that Precept.
I think we all agree that in Buddhism there is no "you MUST do this or you are not Buddhist" philosophy. And for each person, he or she must decide what to accept or reject.
But, it seems to me there is a minimum of things one must believe, or one himself or herself ought to question themselves about how committed they are to Buddhism. For me (note, I say for me), I have to accept the 4 Noble Truths, the 8 Fold Path, and the 5 Precepts. Now, there is, admittedly, interpretation involved in some of those concepts. But if I rejected those most basic principles, then I'd have to begin to question my commitment.
"But, it seems to me there is a minimum of things one must believe"
This doesn't mean anything to me. I don't agree. What happens if you don't? The precepts are a practice to purify the mind. There is no ego trips about following them or not.
"But, it seems to me there is a minimum of things one must believe"
This doesn't mean anything to me. I don't agree. What happens if you don't? The precepts are a practice to purify the mind. There is no ego trips about following them or not.
Jeffrey, you're not reading what I wrote.
I'm not saying that anyone is going to control what you call yourself.
I think you ought to control what you call yourself based on realistically looking at whether or not you fit the characteristics of what is defined as a Buddhist.
To take it to an extreme, it's as if I said, "I'm Barack Obama." Well, no I'm not.
Or, "I'm a Muslim." No, I'm not.
Now, when I say, "I'm a Buddhist," some might argue, but I think I fit sufficient aspects of how a Buddhist is defined to claim that. They don't control the definition, however...it's a self-definition.
It doesn't make much difference what you call yourself is my argument. There are no 'real' and 'unreal' buddhists. We are all trapped in samsara and it is never too late. Hence those who are inspired by buddha's teaching are buddhists.
You could as easily say that you are not a real buddhist if you haven't taken the other 100s of vows possible to take.
The idea of declaring who is and isn't buddhist? The intention is to create some kind of purity. So that there is a meaning to being a buddhist. So someone cannot make peanut butter cereal and say it is 'zen' cereal to the point where it has no respect or meaning. I see a point to that.
But in this case I think the goal of making the buddha more accessible is more important. Taiyaki is forging connections to the buddhadharma mandala. There is MORE not less reason to include him due to his drinking. If he were not drinking then there would be less reason to become a buddhist. Buddhism can help overcome attachments. If you have no attachments then you do not need to be a buddhist.
I'm sorry but I don't like this 'real christian' 'real buddhist' idea. How about 'real suffering human trapped in samsara'. That is the truth. The truth is not that we are buddhists.
Buddhists do not need to follow the training rules (precepts.) They are a tool for acheiving mindfulness and generating merit. What makes a Buddhist is refuge in the 3 jewels. Not that I am saying people should go without the precepts. If you are seriously interested in really studying and practicing the Buddhist path, the precepts are an important and effective tradition. They were prescribed by the Buddha himself for a reason people!
I don't intend to stay a 'buddhist' trapped in samsara. I don't care what someone calls me, but I want peace and happiness. Anyone who wants that is my fellow.
A "Buddhist" in my understanding, is a member of the sangha, that is the 4 groups of people, male monks, female monks, male lay members, and female lay members. What makes a person a part of the Sangha is taking refuge in the 3 jewels. Being a "'buddhist' trapped in samsara" is a far more effective means of escape than just "someone" trapped in samsara, specifically because refuge in the jewels leads to liberation.
If refuge were fabricated it wouldn't be a refuge. Thus refuge has no beginning. Reguge is outside of time or else its worthless. Dukkha = refuge if it is set in time.
My understanding, also, is that being "Buddhist" usually means you have taken refuge in Buddha, dharma, sangha. Not all Buddhists take the precepts, and in some traditions it's possible to take less than the full set.
Also, traditions differ in their approach to the precepts -- in Theravada, they're not usually regarded as some sort of holy vow, and you won't necessarily incur a grave karmic penalty for failing to uphold them.
Can anyone give a sutra referance describing when someone should call themselves buddhists? Or have we made this issue up? This is a fabrication and leads to dukkha. Just practice. Buddhist or not buddhist is vanity. What other end does it serve than vanity? If I am chopping wood do I say I am a 'chopper' or do I chop the wood?
Its like a little kid in a tree fort saying he is a pirate.
"I take refuge, Lord, in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. May the Exalted One receive me as a lay follower; as one who has taken refuge from this very day to life's end."
DN 31
Just one of many many many instances of the Buddhas followers taking refuge as the first step toward entering into the Sangha of the Exalted One's disciples.
but it doesn't discuss calling yourself a buddhist which is what I asked about. If you took refuge then you took refuge. If you are in a sangha then you are in a sangha. But if you call yourself a buddhist then you are calling yourself a buddhist, which is not discussed by buddha.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Everyone knows what a Buddhist is, you are just making things difficult for the sake of making things difficult. Why would the Buddha refer to his teachings as Buddhism? He referred to them as the true Dharma. Why would the Buddha refer to his followers as Buddhists? They are referred to as the true Sangha. Just because "Buddhism" is a concept, doesnt make it useless or invalid. It's just another name to describe a specific religious community.
No I'm not. It was stated you can't be called a buddhist if you don't follow the five precepts. I disagree.
You have provided scripture about REFUGE which is irrelevant to calling one a buddhist. You also ignored my argument about accessibility and how it is selfish to withdraw the mandala of awakening from drinkers and a disservice to buddha.
"But in this case I think the goal of making the buddha more accessible is more important. Taiyaki is forging connections to the buddhadharma mandala. There is MORE not less reason to include him due to his drinking. If he were not drinking then there would be less reason to become a buddhist. Buddhism can help overcome attachments. :coffee: If you have no attachments then you do not need to be a buddhist.:coffee: "
In my own words a mandala has some principle in the center. For the mandala of awakening that center is awakeninng. Bodhicitta = the wish and practice of enlightenment for all beings.
From the center are peripheral pieces that are aligned with that center. For example the beings and organizations devoted to awakening are around that center. Closer to the center are arahants and so forth. Further are those who have taken refuge. But the mandala extends to infinity.
There are mandala guardians who protect the purity of the mandala. You guys are trying to be mandala guardians but you are polluted because the mandala of awakening is for the enlightenment of all beings and not just those who have taken refuge.
I don't get it. What is a mandala? Is this some structure of organization in Tibetan sanghas? I don't consider myself a "mandala gaurdian." And I have not once stated that enlightenment is impossible for anyone.
Those who take refuge in the jewels are entered upon the path to liberation. Enlightenment is not preordained. The potential is omnipresent, but it doesn't mean that everyone will achieve Buddhahood. Enlightenment is like a city surrounded by a great wall. The Buddha's teaching is the only gate into the city. The Buddha states that although he cannot state what beings will enter, anyone who does enter will do so by his gate.
I have described what a mandala is. You are saying that someone cannot say they are a buddhist if they have not taken refuge or the five precepts. Thus you are saying that some are not pure enough to call themselves buddhists.
It is like some barbarian comes to your city and instead of trading with them some soap and sterno you are turning your nose up and not letting them in your 'buddhist' city.
I'm not saying that at all. "Buddhist," is just a word to describe those people who take refuge in the jewels. A Christian takes refuge in Christ. Not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone is a Buddhist.
I still don't understand what a Mandala is.
And also, the Buddha does not turn anyone away from his teachings. The purpose of the metaphor is to state that it is impossible to know how many will attain enlightenment, but it is possible to know the one path that leads to enlightenment.
"Buddhist," is just a word to describe those people who take refuge in the jewels.
You fabricated that definition and you are ignoring that to OTHERS buddhism represents different things. These things draw them closer to the mandala of awakening. I do not know how to teach you what a mandala is :P I guess that concept is not particularly useful for you. The point is that you shouldn't cut people off from buddha by insulting them and telling them they are not good enough to be a buddhist. That name might inspire them to act kindly and so forth. Which is a positive thing and best not to kill others dreams.
Right view leads to enlightenment and you are of the illusory view that some are and some aren't buddhists.
In essence I am pointing out to you that 'buddhist' is a notion. A fabrication and that you hold wrong view that your lable 'buddhist' applies to everyone's situation. There is one path but there are 84000 skillful means. Right action is to use skillful means to encourage people closer to the 8 fold path and support them. If calling myself a buddhist represents to me acting mindful and helping others then it doesn't matter that I drink. Because calling a buddhist is helping ME. You are looking at how it affects YOU because you are proud that you quit drinking and you are trying to get separation and purity. A lot of former drinkers still carry the emotional problem that leads to their drinking and often the issue is emotionally charged. Drinking is a mandala and sobriety is a mandala. When you are at the boundary it is charged with emotions usually negative. So you are trying to get clarity as a non-drinker. For your own peace of mind.
But you are not thinking of taiyaki you are thinking of your own needs. Taiyaki is growing in wisdom by learning about emptiness and being kind and tolerant. Calling him not a buddhist is an insult however it is intended.
I'm not insulting anyone. You are taking what I'm saying much more seriously than I am. Anyone can be Buddhist. This doesn't make everyone Buddhist. The Pope, I'm sure, would find it insulting if you were to imply that he is a Buddhist. You are suggesting that because the gate to enlightenment is open to anyone, that that means that everyone is trying to get in. This simply is not the case.
"This doesn't make everyone Buddhist." So I guess that when Talisman approves that means someone is a buddhist. It doesn't matter I am sure that Taiyaki doesn't care too much as he is very laid back.
Pretty much I don't agree with your definition of what a buddhist is. And I see your actions as harmful due to being exclusionary; they push people away from buddhism rather than towards. You are not catching onto my way of thinking so I find this to be unfortunately rather frustrating.
I don't think I can explain this properly to you. In essence just watch what happens to people when you call them 'not buddhist'. Does it lead to skill peace in that person or the opposite? Thats it.
Comments
You &^%&#@!! idiot!
I think thats true.. But the projection does not crumble like pebbles. It is like a song that keeps coming up again and again.
on another note:
“Whether a deed is good, or becomes a sin, is difficult to determine. Some actions may appear righteous when the intention behind them is wrong. Likewise, an action may appear dishonorable, but may in some cases have a pure and innocent intention. Whether something is good or bad depends on the mind alone.”
- Wonhyo
but I should and would work on being more careful with how I chose my words.
I'm honest and direct, but sometimes lack subtlety when it is needed.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."
The Buddhist "Middle way" is quite different from the normal usage of the word "middle". The Buddhist "middle way" is also quite difficult to follow and requires a good deal of consistent effort to practice properly. The Buddhist "middle way" does not deviate from the Eight fold path. The very phrase "middle way" is ascribed to the Buddha himself in his description of the Noble Eightfold Path as a path between the extremes of austerities (starving yourself, etc.) and sensual indulgence (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) The middle way is not the "easy way".
Rules are subject to interpretation. The 4NT and 8FP are what bring forth understanding and lead to awakening.
I treat the 5 precepts as a simple guide to not doing what does not help, not as rules that must be adhered to.
But then, I'm not much of one to take vows so I can officially say I have joined the team.
For example I stopped drinking. Not because of some rule, but because I developed enough feeble mindfulness to become aware that it was not helping and in fact was making things more difficult.
Best Wishes
Do I violate them?
- I take the fifth (amendment).
http://www.answers.com/topic/taking-the-fifth
:cool:
I use insecticide in cases of a terrible infestation, but it is better yet not to ever leave food or water out as much as possible. And keep food in tupperware in cabinets or otherwise away from insects.
For my hops I was using an organic insecticide and I guess I will suffer the karma.
I do my best. Sadly, though, I have to say that every year I've ended up resorting to insectide at some point or another.
Personally, I found that with time it became easier to observe the precepts. When I first started practicing, it was pretty difficult to keep ANY of them. The only one I could honestly say that I kept was the first one, because I didn't purposely go around killing things lol. These days, however, I pretty much keep them all. I may be pretty lax with the fifth every once in a while because I may occasionally have a few beers after work - but its actually been quite some time. So for now, I haven't had a problem observing any of them.
Maybe, we should not worry so much about the little accidents that you mentioned.
The vows can create positive or negative karma. The power amplifies the karma. If you break vows it is worse than if you had never taken them.
But, it seems to me there is a minimum of things one must believe, or one himself or herself ought to question themselves about how committed they are to Buddhism. For me (note, I say for me), I have to accept the 4 Noble Truths, the 8 Fold Path, and the 5 Precepts. Now, there is, admittedly, interpretation involved in some of those concepts. But if I rejected those most basic principles, then I'd have to begin to question my commitment.
This doesn't mean anything to me. I don't agree. What happens if you don't? The precepts are a practice to purify the mind. There is no ego trips about following them or not.
I'm not saying that anyone is going to control what you call yourself.
I think you ought to control what you call yourself based on realistically looking at whether or not you fit the characteristics of what is defined as a Buddhist.
To take it to an extreme, it's as if I said, "I'm Barack Obama." Well, no I'm not.
Or, "I'm a Muslim." No, I'm not.
Now, when I say, "I'm a Buddhist," some might argue, but I think I fit sufficient aspects of how a Buddhist is defined to claim that. They don't control the definition, however...it's a self-definition.
You could as easily say that you are not a real buddhist if you haven't taken the other 100s of vows possible to take.
The idea of declaring who is and isn't buddhist? The intention is to create some kind of purity. So that there is a meaning to being a buddhist. So someone cannot make peanut butter cereal and say it is 'zen' cereal to the point where it has no respect or meaning. I see a point to that.
But in this case I think the goal of making the buddha more accessible is more important. Taiyaki is forging connections to the buddhadharma mandala. There is MORE not less reason to include him due to his drinking. If he were not drinking then there would be less reason to become a buddhist. Buddhism can help overcome attachments. If you have no attachments then you do not need to be a buddhist.
I'm sorry but I don't like this 'real christian' 'real buddhist' idea. How about 'real suffering human trapped in samsara'. That is the truth. The truth is not that we are buddhists.
Also, traditions differ in their approach to the precepts -- in Theravada, they're not usually regarded as some sort of holy vow, and you won't necessarily incur a grave karmic penalty for failing to uphold them.
Its like a little kid in a tree fort saying he is a pirate.
Might be off base here, but my impression is that it's basically a product of the 19th century.
You have provided scripture about REFUGE which is irrelevant to calling one a buddhist. You also ignored my argument about accessibility and how it is selfish to withdraw the mandala of awakening from drinkers and a disservice to buddha.
"But in this case I think the goal of making the buddha more accessible is more important. Taiyaki is forging connections to the buddhadharma mandala. There is MORE not less reason to include him due to his drinking. If he were not drinking then there would be less reason to become a buddhist. Buddhism can help overcome attachments. :coffee: If you have no attachments then you do not need to be a buddhist.:coffee: "
From the center are peripheral pieces that are aligned with that center. For example the beings and organizations devoted to awakening are around that center. Closer to the center are arahants and so forth. Further are those who have taken refuge. But the mandala extends to infinity.
There are mandala guardians who protect the purity of the mandala. You guys are trying to be mandala guardians but you are polluted because the mandala of awakening is for the enlightenment of all beings and not just those who have taken refuge.
I am being pretty blunt today I guess.
Those who take refuge in the jewels are entered upon the path to liberation. Enlightenment is not preordained. The potential is omnipresent, but it doesn't mean that everyone will achieve Buddhahood. Enlightenment is like a city surrounded by a great wall. The Buddha's teaching is the only gate into the city. The Buddha states that although he cannot state what beings will enter, anyone who does enter will do so by his gate.
It is like some barbarian comes to your city and instead of trading with them some soap and sterno you are turning your nose up and not letting them in your 'buddhist' city.
A city is a mandala too.
I still don't understand what a Mandala is.
And also, the Buddha does not turn anyone away from his teachings. The purpose of the metaphor is to state that it is impossible to know how many will attain enlightenment, but it is possible to know the one path that leads to enlightenment.
You fabricated that definition and you are ignoring that to OTHERS buddhism represents different things. These things draw them closer to the mandala of awakening. I do not know how to teach you what a mandala is :P I guess that concept is not particularly useful for you. The point is that you shouldn't cut people off from buddha by insulting them and telling them they are not good enough to be a buddhist. That name might inspire them to act kindly and so forth. Which is a positive thing and best not to kill others dreams.
Right view leads to enlightenment and you are of the illusory view that some are and some aren't buddhists.
But you are not thinking of taiyaki you are thinking of your own needs. Taiyaki is growing in wisdom by learning about emptiness and being kind and tolerant. Calling him not a buddhist is an insult however it is intended.
Pretty much I don't agree with your definition of what a buddhist is. And I see your actions as harmful due to being exclusionary; they push people away from buddhism rather than towards. You are not catching onto my way of thinking so I find this to be unfortunately rather frustrating.