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.
Is New Buddhism About Ignoring Precepts?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Have you been to China, korea or japan?
Hermitwin, yes I was raised in HK. Here in Wisconsin, at least, our alcohol consumption is very high; so I could see the intoxicants precept being a big source of discussion. I'm not saying other cultures don't also drink.
Once airborne, all traditions have varying flight-paths.....
I think we've established that members here are not into ignoring them - but there is a diversity of opinion with regard to the strictness and relevance of the precepts and the subsequent adhesion....
Lying, for example lying to nazi troops about the jewish family hiding under the floor boards. Is it proper Buddhism to turn them in so one doesn't lie?
Killing, say you're driving down the street and you see someone pull out an automatic weapon and shooting into a crowd, is it proper Buddhism to avoid that person or would it be better to swerve into them to stop the killing?
Intoxication, if you're is in the final stages of a terminal illness and in a lot of pain is it unbuddhist to ease your pain if doing so would cause mental cloudiness?
I can't come up with a good reason for sexual misconduct but I'm not sure its generally agreed upon where the line is in every situation exactly.
Also, the precepts aren't commandments that one is required to adopt in order to benefit from the Buddhist teachings. They are an aid to ones practice. I don't think you would say an alchoholic shouldn't practice Buddhism unless they can give up alchohol. Certainly getting sober would be beneficial to them but its not a requirement to practice.
In this particular case, however, we don't know the tradition, the type of place or temple they're staying (e.g., I find it odd they're not under vows of celibacy if it's a temple), nor do we even know if these people are engaged in a sexual relationship for sure (it's only suspected, not confirmed), so I was wary of passing judgment and saying that it is, without a doubt, unethical or whatever you'd want to call it because I'd personally need a bit more to go on.
@person: the "good reason" for sexual misconduct, as presented in the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows (see berzinarchives.com), opens a real Pandora's Box. It says that if a student is really fixated on having sex with the teacher and would abandon the Dharma if she (it's written from the male perspective) didn't, and furthermore if there would be a risk that her anger or bitterness toward the Dharma would carry over to subsequent lifetimes, then the teacher is obligated to have sex with the student. You can see how this could lead to teachers projecting desire onto the student.
In my case, for example, I don't see what I wrote as a rationalization, it's simply an explanation of my understanding of, and approach to, the fifth precept, which differs from the other four. That said, I know when I break the fifth precept that I'm breaking it. I don't make excuses and try to argue that my drinking a glass of wine doesn't technically violate it, but I also don't beat myself about it, either (and my link above explains the reason why).
However, a monastic in the Buddhist traditions of which I am aware participates in a public ceremony where he agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the order, including the Precepts. There is usually a governing body or more than one governing body regulating the order. In Thailand, for example, you have the Supreme Sangha, as well as a governmental office, both of which oversee a somewhat strict interpretation of Buddhist tradition.
That is much different than the lay Buddhist in Thailand, whom no one regulates.
Let me illustrate the difference I am getting at here:
My father (who was not Buddhist) could rationalize many reasons to drink. But it really all came down to him simply wanting a drink.
A mountain lion begins to prowl just outside my house (I live in Colorado). While I would contact the appropriate authorities, I would justify what I needed to do to protect myself and my loved ones.
Incidentally, hasn't anybody ever stopped to consider that whatever decision you make, Mindfully, with consideration and skilfulness, regarding a precept and generating good Kamma - there is always an 'equal and opposite' reaction, in that inevitably, someone, somewhere, will suffer to some degree and extent, as a result of your Right Effort. to do the Right Thing?
If you decide to move away from Buddhism, you can always come back. It's your choice.
When you are kicked out of an order of monks for not following the Precepts, choice is taken away from you.
Same as with this forum. Some people get banned and can't return. That's a lot different than me deciding (as I did) several weeks ago to take a few weeks off and then possibly return.
Following up on my last post:
And the difference between following vows for yourself versus a group, is that in one failure you only affect yourself. In the other failure, you affect the group to whom you have made the vows.
And, additionally, I thought one of the major aspects of practicing Buddhist principles was progress toward nibanna.
For what it's worth, I understand the precepts to be training rules that are voluntarily undertaken to help protect oneself, as well as other sentient beings, from the results of unskillful actions, and to help provide the meditator with the peace of mind conducive to a successful meditation practice.
Always, somewhere, someone, will suffer as a result of your decision to 'act morally'.
bit of a dilemma, isn't it, if you think on it completely?
"He who deliberates fully before taking each step will spend his entire life on one leg".
'Damned' if you do, 'damned' if you don't...........
So following your suggestion would mean nobody would ever take any vows.
Personally i just believe that all we can do is try our best and thats all we need/can do about everything in our entire life:).
Whether you make the vows or not, whether you adhere to moral and ethical principles or not, whatever decision you make to do something good, to do it well and to do it as an upright, righteous member of society - will somehow impact negatively on someone else.
but no matter which way you turn in being a virtuous and righteous Buddhist who adheres to the precepts, at one point or another, along the line - you are stuffing someone over, much to their detriment.
One topic I discussed is that there is a difference between breaking a commitment that one makes solely to oneself, as compared to breaking a commitment when you become part of a group. If tonight I break my commitment to myself by sitting in my home, alone, and have a glass of rum and coke...it affects no one except myself and sets me back on my path. If a monk violates the Precept of not drinking, his actions may affect the perspective of a few or many people about respecting Buddhist monks and/or Buddhism. And if you think that kind of affect doesn't really happen, look at what has happened to the number of Catholic churches in the U.S. when priests have broken their vows.
Now, in order to win your argument, you want to bring in the case of murder. Okay. If a private citizen in Thailand who happens to be Buddhist murders someone, not many people are going to say, "See, a Buddhist murdered someone. Buddhism is not a valid religion." That murderer has affected another person and that person's family and friends AND certainly set back his path. On the other hand, if a Buddhist monk in Thailand murders someone, it will be big news, it will affect his own temple and that whole community and will affect Buddhism in Thailand. The Supreme Sangha will go into a tizzy, the government will begin to crack down on monks. A large segment of the population will be affected. AND, the then ex-monk will have affected his own path.
Now, I have discussed a couple of situations. There are hundreds of others we could dream up, some of which would be rather unique. I have not attempted in this post to discuss all aspects of the topic. I am simply presenting a couple of scenarios.
But in all scenarios there is the personal level of the violator of the Precept, possibly the affect on a victim, and possibly an affect on a whole community.
Those are all different aspects of the questions at hand.
"If we follow the Precepts they will help us" - but will do someone else harm.
By 'someone else' do you mean, a 'non-Buddhist' someone else, a 'Buddhist layperson' someone else, or a 'Buddhist ordained person' someone else?
see, all these things have different results and impacts....
In any case, your reasoning suggests it is harder for lay practitioners to uphold their vows because they don't have the added social incentives to abide by them.