Is New Buddhism About Ignoring Precepts?

Iktomi

Lets face the facts that everyone has broken precepts before. And in no way does that mean that they shouldn't have taken them. I'm not talking about the OPs comments, I'm talking about your comments.

Where did I comment that someone hasn't broken the precepts before, or that having broken precepts, that they shouldn't have been taken to begin with?

I'm saying that it may not be essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism.

I'm saying there is no essential difference between a lay practitioner and a monastic in terms of their being responsible or not.

I'm saying that our apparent actions can be indicative of how serious we are in practicing Buddhism, and in this way I agree with the OP. Indeed, the fact that we are not monastics and indulge in this online debate may be somewhat indicative of our seriousness.

You said in response to federica that "If anyone feels that way the obvious solution is to not make vows that can't be kept. "

No, the obvious solution is to take the precepts and try to keep them, because that is precisely what they are for. A person that can always keep the precepts, does not even need to take them to begin with. For a person that can always keep them, they are useless and unnecessary.

If I may ask, do you feel that it is essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism, even if it's felt that they can't be kept?

vinlyn

If I may ask, do you feel that it is essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism, even if it's felt that they can't be kept?

What are the foundations of Buddhism?

In my view, the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and The Precepts.

So yes, striving to fulfill a vow to the basic foundations of Buddhism is a foundation of one's practice.

Jeffrey

There are Eight Woldly Winds of SAMSARA:

gain and loss
pleasure and pain
praise and blame
fame and infamy


Just do your practice. Try to help others.

Iktomi

If I may ask, do you feel that it is essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism, even if it's felt that they can't be kept?

What are the foundations of Buddhism?

In my view, the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and The Precepts.

So yes, striving to fulfill a vow to the basic foundations of Buddhism is a foundation of one's practice.

Let's be clear on this if you don't mind. A vow is a promise or oath. It is obviously possible to do something without promising to do it, so what exactly do you mean? Can you explain?

seeker242

Lets face the facts that everyone has broken precepts before. And in no way does that mean that they shouldn't have taken them. I'm not talking about the OPs comments, I'm talking about your comments.

Where did I comment that someone hasn't broken the precepts before, or that having broken precepts, that they shouldn't have been taken to begin with?

I'm saying that it may not be essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism.

I'm saying there is no essential difference between a lay practitioner and a monastic in terms of their being responsible or not.

I'm saying that our apparent actions can be indicative of how serious we are in practicing Buddhism, and in this way I agree with the OP. Indeed, the fact that we are not monastics and indulge in this online debate may be somewhat indicative of our seriousness.

You said in response to federica that "If anyone feels that way the obvious solution is to not make vows that can't be kept. "

No, the obvious solution is to take the precepts and try to keep them, because that is precisely what they are for. A person that can always keep the precepts, does not even need to take them to begin with. For a person that can always keep them, they are useless and unnecessary.

If I may ask, do you feel that it is essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism, even if it's felt that they can't be kept?

I have never encounterd a person that sincerely took precepts that went in saying "I can't keep these"

Iktomi

Are you sidestepping the question?

seeker242

Are you sidestepping the question?

The question is irrelevant.

Iktomi

I see.

seeker242

The reason why is if they are taking the precepts that mean that they are going to try. No one takes precepts with no intentions of keeping them.

vinlyn

If I may ask, do you feel that it is essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism, even if it's felt that they can't be kept?

What are the foundations of Buddhism?

In my view, the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and The Precepts.

So yes, striving to fulfill a vow to the basic foundations of Buddhism is a foundation of one's practice.

Let's be clear on this if you don't mind. A vow is a promise or oath. It is obviously possible to do something without promising to do it, so what exactly do you mean? Can you explain?

That is my explanation. I believe that you have to deal with the foundations of the religion before you begin to worry about all the other aspects of it.

If you don't like my viewpoint, please just ignore me.

Iktomi

The reason why is if they are taking the precepts that mean that they are going to try. No one takes precepts with no intentions of keeping them.

As I've tried to point out, it is obviously possible to successfully engage in an activity or practice without promising to try. What are you trying to say?

seeker242

The reason why is if they are taking the precepts that mean that they are going to try. No one takes precepts with no intentions of keeping them.

As I've tried to point out, it is obviously possible to successfully engage in an activity or practice without promising to try. What are you trying to say?

I'm trying to say that saying people should not take precepts, if they are not 100% sure they can keep them, like you have implied, defeats the whole purpose of the precepts to begin with. They were designed precisely for people who would break them to begin with. You don't need to tell someone not to steal, if they would never steal anything to begin with.

Iktomi

If I may ask, do you feel that it is essential to make vows in order to practice Buddhism, even if it's felt that they can't be kept?

What are the foundations of Buddhism?

In my view, the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and The Precepts.

So yes, striving to fulfill a vow to the basic foundations of Buddhism is a foundation of one's practice.

Let's be clear on this if you don't mind. A vow is a promise or oath. It is obviously possible to do something without promising to do it, so what exactly do you mean? Can you explain?

That is my explanation. I believe that you have to deal with the foundations of the religion before you begin to worry about all the other aspects of it.

If you don't like my viewpoint, please just ignore me.

I do not dislike your viewpoint. You're just not being clear and I'd like to discover what you mean.

Perhaps you believe that Buddhist practice cannot be successful without promises made to a community because the social incentive it provides? Social incentives do have power of course, but perhaps they are not essential, yes?

driedleaf

Precepts are training rules. Vows and oaths are completely different.

Jeffrey

It's possible to meditate for 20-25 years to 'be a good buddhist'. Or because we 'should'.

Somewhere along the way we see that the buddhist path is about being a friend to ourselves and others.

The precepts are an act of generosity given with an open hand to self and others. They are not performed to be something, to not be something, or to be some way. These are all sankara. Fabrications based on an idea of I, me, and mine. Or even 'us'.

Iktomi

You don't need to tell someone not to steal, if they would never steal anything to begin with.

Likewise, a someone doesn't need to promise not to steal anything in order to successfully not steal.

Iktomi

Precepts are training rules. Vows and oaths are completely different.

So no commitment is understood or implied?

seeker242

You don't need to tell someone not to steal, if they would never steal anything to begin with.

Likewise, a someone doesn't need to promise not to steal anything in order to successfully not steal.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about.

Iktomi

You don't need to tell someone not to steal, if they would never steal anything to begin with.

Likewise, a someone doesn't need to promise not to steal anything in order to successfully not steal.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about.

I agree we're not having much of a dialog.

DharmaField

I have met people who have entered the stream without even knowing what Buddhism or the precept are. I have observed that old timers seem to take the precepts a lot less literally, and tend to point out they require interpretation, as there are, as someone pointed out, always situations which the right choice is not to follow them literally. I have friends who are married to Buddhist teachers and find it to be a wonderful mutual sharing of the way. I have also noticed that some things really don't matter if they are done in moderation, such as drinking alcohol on occaision, but there are other things, such as watching too much television, that can be just as mindnumbing and bad for one's practice as having a few too many beers. So, if we keep to the spirit of what the precepts are about we can be serious without being wowsers. The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined 'Wowser as an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'. There is a saying: Too loose and there is no music, too tight - the string breaks.

Iktomi

Not too loose or too tight is the very definition of normal. Nothing wrong with being normal in our societies.

vinlyn

I have met people who have entered the stream without even knowing what Buddhism or the precept are. I have observed that old timers seem to take the precepts a lot less literally, and tend to point out they require interpretation, as there are, as someone pointed out, always situations which the right choice is not to follow them literally. I have friends who are married to Buddhist teachers and find it to be a wonderful mutual sharing of the way. I have also noticed that some things really don't matter if they are done in moderation, such as drinking alcohol on occaision, but there are other things, such as watching too much television, that can be just as mindnumbing and bad for one's practice as having a few too many beers. So, if we keep to the spirit of what the precepts are about we can be serious without being wowsers. The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined 'Wowser as an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'. There is a saying: Too loose and there is no music, too tight - the string breaks.

How would you know that someone had seen nibanna?

Dakini

I have never encounterd a person that sincerely took precepts that went in saying "I can't keep these"

Thanks for bringing this up, seeker. This is what I've been asking about since near the beginning of this. Genkaku said something along the lines of: we take the precepts knowing we can't keep them, but we try anyway. Maybe you'll have better luck getting an answer to your question than I did mine. :-/

DharmaField

I have met people who have entered the stream without even knowing what Buddhism or the precept are. ....

How would you know that someone had seen nibanna?

How does anyone know, including the Buddha? In these cases, they went on to be Buddhist teachers, but I am sure that stream entry is not so hard, and later on such labels mean little except to others...

There is always reason to doubt...Who am I to say? Who is the one reading this post?

vinlyn

I have met people who have entered the stream without even knowing what Buddhism or the precept are. ....

How would you know that someone had seen nibanna?

How does anyone know, including the Buddha? In these cases, they went on to be Buddhist teachers, but I am sure that stream entry is not so hard, and later on such labels mean little except to others...

There is always reason to doubt...Who am I to say? Who is the one reading this post?

So you don't know that the people had entered the stream?

Jeffrey

I think you can read about what a stream enterer is. It is talked about.. I haven't committed any of that data to mind. A lama said a bodhisattva is comparable to a stream enterer. The realization of a bodhisattva is that all sentient beings really *can* become fully enlightened. They see it directly somehow. So thats a pretty mindblowing realization if it were true. It would be like your child had the ability to become a Beethoven or Mozart and you knew it?

The diamond sutra says that a stream enterer does not regard themselves as a stream enterer. And that is how they are a stream enterer.

driedleaf

Precepts are training rules. Vows and oaths are completely different.

So no commitment is understood or implied?

For the laity there is not oath or vow unless you chose to do so personally. For monastics you have the responsibility of yourself (as a monastic), the temple, and the sangha that you belong to. So even though you did not vow, the consequences will be greater for you if you break them.

DharmaField

Stream entrant is a confusing term, and has different meanings in different traditions.

I generally agree with http://www.vincenthorn.com/2008/12/07/the-importance-of-stream-entry/

The Diamond Sutra is pointing to how clinging to labels is a step away from entering, when you enter and you think "Wow, look everyone - I am a stream entrant!" you are back on solid ground. Generally, to become a teacher there is some requirement in many traditions for a basic sense of jumping into the stream - staying in it is another matter.

I have been told that the more experience one has the more one can recognise its marks and know it in others; but in my experienc individual differences abound and I am not surprised that there is a lack of consensus even among teachers as to who is the wisest...

federica

Hello everyone - back after a brief night's sleep....
so - what the heck is everyone talking about?

:scratch:

Iktomi

Precepts are training rules. Vows and oaths are completely different.

So no commitment is understood or implied?

For the laity there is not oath or vow unless you chose to do so personally. For monastics you have the responsibility of yourself (as a monastic), the temple, and the sangha that you belong to. So even though you did not vow, the consequences will be greater for you if you break them.

Ah! now we're finally getting somewhere. Lay practitioners chose how committed they are and monastics also chose how committed they are, excellent. Monastics have responsibilities, very good. But wait! how is it possible that lay practitioners have no responsibilities???

driedleaf

Precepts are training rules. Vows and oaths are completely different.

So no commitment is understood or implied?

For the laity there is not oath or vow unless you chose to do so personally. For monastics you have the responsibility of yourself (as a monastic), the temple, and the sangha that you belong to. So even though you did not vow, the consequences will be greater for you if you break them.

Ah! now we're finally getting somewhere. Lay practitioners chose how committed they are and monastics also chose how committed they are, excellent. Monastics have responsibilities, very good. But wait! how is it possible that lay practitioners have no responsibilities???

I only meant that monastics have a heavier weight to carry than the laity regarding precepts. On the other hand, we do need to be more responsible for our actions as the laity. We shouldn't really need to be told to do what is best for us. We should really make it our duty to live a good life.


Peace

federica

On the other hand, we do need to be more responsible for our actions as the laity. We shouldn't really need to be told to do what is best for us. We should really make it our duty to live a good life.
Peace

Everybody's definition of 'a good life' will invariably vary, and circumstance, peer pressure and influence and personal discipline will play major roles in that.

If a person has attained a position of being a respected, well-liked and generally popular teacher, who seems to be distinguished by the amount they know, and the knowledge they impart, and have a good record and history of their career and vocation, then generally, that teacher should be relied upon to have put some considerable thought into their actions.
no person of such esteemed reputation, and such a worthy spiritual character, is suddenly going to mess things up to the extent that their lay-followers will reel in shock and horror at their actions.
i think if someone has proven they re trustworthy - perhaps they should be shown a little trust and consideration, and not be vilified, condemned and criticised - particularly without concrete evidence, information and a reliable source of what they must - and must not - do.

I have seen peoples' lives utterly destroyed by one small insinuation sowing seeds of doubt into the populace'mind - look at the recent scandal regarding the head of the IMF, Dominique strauss-Kand....
What a total explosion that was over nothing, in the end.
Jerry Lee Lewis caused international furore when he married his 13-year old second-cousin - but it was a legal union, and they were married thirteen years. however, the scandal brought a violent halt to his career.
there are countless other incidents which have come into the public eye and have ruined the lives of those concerned - often involved in an innocent and acceptable manner.

So, much as the OP might have been indignant, how did his teacher's action affect her ability to impart what he had hitherto regarded as excellent teaching?
And has anything in that sector changed?
and what damage could he wreak upon her and her career if he makes such a big thing of this perceived indiscretion?
And is the potential damage commensurate with his indignant point of view?
His perception has been dented.
What would happen if he acted upon that distortion?

Iktomi

I only meant that monastics have a heavier weight to carry than the laity regarding precepts.

The consequences for transgressions are more severe for monastics than for everyone else? Why would that be? If, for example, a monk privately got intoxicated it would somehow be worse than if a Buddhist lay practitioner got privately intoxicated?

Telly03

I only meant that monastics have a heavier weight to carry than the laity regarding precepts.

The consequences for transgressions are more severe for monastics than for everyone else? Why would that be? If, for example, a monk privately got intoxicated it would somehow be worse than if a Buddhist lay practitioner got privately intoxicated?

Perhaps, but you have to ask the person doing the judging

vinlyn

I only meant that monastics have a heavier weight to carry than the laity regarding precepts.

The consequences for transgressions are more severe for monastics than for everyone else? Why would that be? If, for example, a monk privately got intoxicated it would somehow be worse than if a Buddhist lay practitioner got privately intoxicated?

1. The monks are in a formal community with a controlling body.
2. The monks have made their vows publicly, in most cases...at least that's the way it is in Thailand.
3. The monks set the example for the laity.

driedleaf

The consequences for transgressions are more severe for monastics than for everyone else? Why would that be? If, for example, a monk privately got intoxicated it would somehow be worse than if a Buddhist lay practitioner got privately intoxicated?

Of course. It's not just about you now. It's about the community too. It's the community that donates and support you that you are hurting. If I got privately intoxicated then I am hurting only myself or perhaps a few others within my circle. If a monastic got intoxicated privately the results of that would be a failed monk, and a hurt community.

Iktomi

I only meant that monastics have a heavier weight to carry than the laity regarding precepts.

The consequences for transgressions are more severe for monastics than for everyone else? Why would that be? If, for example, a monk privately got intoxicated it would somehow be worse than if a Buddhist lay practitioner got privately intoxicated?

1. The monks are in a formal community with a controlling body.

How does that make the results of their actions more severe? and in any case, Lay practitioners also belong to the community...

2. The monks have made their vows publicly, in most cases...at least that's the way it is in Thailand.

How does that make the results of their actions more severe? and in any case, Lay practitioners also make commitments to their community...

3. The monks set the example for the laity.

And lay practitioners live in a vacuum? Are not lay practitioners members of communities, and if they are, don't they set examples of all kinds?

Iktomi

The consequences for transgressions are more severe for monastics than for everyone else? Why would that be? If, for example, a monk privately got intoxicated it would somehow be worse than if a Buddhist lay practitioner got privately intoxicated?

Of course. It's not just about you now. It's about the community too.

Yes, right. Silly question but don't lay practitioners live in communities?

It's the community that donates and support you that you are hurting. If I got privately intoxicated then I am hurting only myself or perhaps a few others within my circle. If a monastic got intoxicated privately the results of that would be a failed monk, and a hurt community.

I can't follow your logic. Many many people get intoxicated and hurt themselves and others driving, for example, which effects more than just a few others withing a small circle. The result of that can be devastating for many people.

vinlyn

Iktomi, you have your view, which is fine, but NOTHING anyone says accomplishes anything more than you asking the same basic questions over and over again. Have it your way. I'm done.

Iktomi

That's simply because I'm right.

federica

no, it's simply because you're damn argumentative.
thanks everyone.
I think this thread is also 'done'.