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.
Comparing the Precepts to the Commandments
I have read on a few websites that the Precepts are very different from the Ten Commandments of Christianity, in that the precepts are not strictly necessary to follow in every, single thing you do, because unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no God against which one can sin.
This make sense, but is it true? If it is true, to what extant are the Five Precepts meant to be followed?
This make sense, but is it true? If it is true, to what extant are the Five Precepts meant to be followed?
0
Comments
I'm just curious. Thank you!
In my opinion.... to the beginner, they're often viewed as a guide on a path of wellness. To the advanced, they're "why in the world would I want to do that?"
That's my two cents.
Whether or not there's a deity against whom to sin isn't relevant. They're guidelines to help us avoid doing harm, but we're expected to use discernment as to how to apply them. The standard example about breaking them is: do you lie when the Gestapo arrives at the door asking if there are Jews hidden in your house. Of course you lie, because your lie will save lives. Saving lives is a greater good than keeping the precept against lying. But any decision to transgress a precept is to be weighed carefully and sincerely, and the issue shouldn't come up very often.
The bigger question seems to be: if you take a precept, are you expected to keep it, or is it ok to try and fail repeatedly? Some say it's best to only take precepts you know you can keep, and take them seriously, rather than regard them more casually. This is what generates the most debate.
Welcome to our humble forum, peyruckus.
The Commandments are demands from God. You obey them because God will punish you and your people if you do not, and if He doesn't punish you in this life, there is judgement awaiting. Besides, His worldly authority acting in His name certainly will punish you since God tends to smite entire populations for disobedience. A case might be made that some of the laws protect people from each other's sinful nature, but again what the laws mostly do is define behavior that is reserved for God alone. You may not kill, but God certainly does. You may not steal, but God owns the entire world and can give and take away as He pleases.
The Precepts are vows taken voluntarily to limit one's behavior in an attempt to make oneself a better person. The Vows are warning lights set against our mind's tendency to justify our actions when driven by our desires and result in behavior that causes suffering. They are planted in front of common emotions that drive these desires: anger, lust, greed, fear, etc. If you are a monk, the price of joining the temple and donning the robe is to keep a certain number of vows, to obstain from certain behavior, and punishment might extend to being expelled from the Sangha in the worse cases. As lay Buddhist, the Precepts are a thumbnail version of behavior that is necessary to even begin to practice Buddhism. To argue against the Precepts being important is to argue that the 8-Fold Path is not important. It IS being a Buddhist. Whatever you call yourself, if you don't attempt to follow some version of the Precepts in your daily life, you are not practicing Buddhism.
What they have in common is a prohibition against the universal tendency to selfish behavior that hurts others and puts your own desires above those of other people. In the case of the Commandments, that includes putting your own desires above God's will.
Spiny
Nice post Cinorjer.
Spiny
I guess my main point is... the commandments, no matter if you accept them voluntarily or not, are "rules" of the religion, and must be followed. The precepts are not "rules" which have been mandated by Buddhism. I'm not sure a Christian can arbitrarily follow whichever of the commandments they choose. They are rules whose violation is a punishable offense. Although I do realize many Buddhists feel that violation of the Precepts will result in karma which will have to be dealt with at some point in time.
Commandements are prohibitions.
Suppose Buddhism is akin to discipline with understanding and by choice - commandments are akin to discipline with fear of retribution.
Train your dog by a clicker and treats or with a scolding voice and a rolled up newspaper?
But really, it's hard to compare the two, the Precepts and Commandments, because they deal with two different things, like apples and oranges. The Commandments deal with sin, which is disobeying God's will. The Precepts deal with actions that lead to suffering. Their authority comes from two entirely different directions. A Christian would and does claim the Buddhist Precepts are perhaps a well meant attempt, but nontheless a doomed failure to apply morality to life, because all morality comes from God and suffering is because of our original sin and only God can decide who does and does not suffer in this life. To them, the Precepts are only trying to substitute "good deeds" for salvation, and they have plenty of teachings about the folly of doing that. It's simply a vastly different worldview.
But really, it's hard to compare the two, the Precepts and Commandments, because they deal with two different things, like apples and oranges. The Commandments deal with sin, which is disobeying God's will. The Precepts deal with actions that lead to suffering. Their authority comes from two entirely different directions. A Christian would and does claim the Buddhist Precepts are perhaps a well meant attempt, but nontheless a doomed failure to apply morality to life, because all morality comes from God and suffering is because of our original sin and only God can decide who does and does not suffer in this life. To them, the Precepts are only trying to substitute "good deeds" for salvation, and they have plenty of teachings about the folly of doing that. It's simply a vastly different worldview."
Since returning to the States for the past two years, in addition to my regular meditations, I also attend a Methodist church about once a month. I've yet to hear a single reading or message from the Old Testament, and no talk of punishment or condemnation...and this is relatively fundamentalist Colorado Springs.
It seems to me you put an awfully lot of words in an awfully lot of Christian mouths.
It's kind of like you are a butcher and you have a family to support. You might never become a buddhist at all if it meant you just had to hop up and quit your job. But you can practice the part of buddhism that you are prepared to follow.
Another example is people who do not want to meditate. You could say they are not buddhist I think equally easy as saying a person who does not follow the precepts is not buddhist. You could also say that those unable to meditate one hour every day are not buddhist, because they will probably not accomplish anything with their meditation other than prepare them for a later time when they have more interest, perhaps in the next lifetime. I'm being a little harsh because it annoys me when the "you are not a buddhist" police get on their high horse. Actually I don't see any reason other than ego to call someone not a buddhist.
So the person may drink alcohol. But if they do they are going to experience all the karmic consequences such as a hangover or less resources or not being able to meditate because the evening is devoted to partying.
Also as Dakini said some people take the vow of the fifth precept but they interpret it to mean drinking to the point of heedlessness. I think everyone will agree that the precepts are meant to be helpful, but some people will accurately comment that even one glass of wine affects the mind.
Last time I checked, Methodists of all types still believed that the only way to get to Heaven is by accepting Christ as your Savior. So unless you've done that, they believe you and I are going to Hell. That makes them wrong in my opinion, but not bad people. If they don't believe I'm going to Hell for not becoming a Christian, then they are the ones that have a problem with their religious beliefs, not me.
And to be honest, most Christians that I know do not accept all aspects of Christian beliefs carte blanche. And yet, some posters on the forum like to paint all Christians as wild fundamentalists. There is a tremendously broad spectrum of beliefs within the Christian community. Yes, I have met Christians who adamantly believe that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, that you are not going to heaven. But I have met more Christians who believe that's just the "my religion is better than your religion hype" that is a part of all religions. 76% of Americans call themselves Christians, yet only 41% of Americans go to church regularly (whatever regularly means).
On this forum, everyone seems to say how important the Five Precepts are, yet over and over we have discussions first about whether the Precepts are rules or suggestions. Then, more threads that can't agree on the meaning of Precepts 1, 4, and 5. We debate about what comes after nibanna, yet can't agree whether it's reincarnation or rebirth. Some here believe that the Buddhist scriptures are the exact teachings of Buddha, while others of us say, nonsense, those scriptures were written a hundred or more years after Buddha's death, and only after many years of words being passed on only orally. We can't even agree on which school of Buddhism -- Theravada, Mahāyāna, or Vajrayāna -- is right.
And so yet, even though Christians can't agree on what is right, they want to go out and tell others what is right. And, even though Buddhists can't agree on what is right, they want to go out and tell others what is right. There is no wisdom is that approach, no matter what "side" is doing it.
Christians ought to respect Buddhists.
Buddhists ought to respect Christians.
But if you take refuge in the three jewels, you're expressing an intention to engage in the Buddhist experiment -- see how far can you get by undertaking to lead a fully moral life. According to the Buddha's promise, fruits of leading a noble, moral life are swift to arrive in the here and now. He was thus inviting everybody to come and see for themselves. The only thing where the Buddhist practice could possibly be of any relevance is if the practitioners feel for themselves, on their own skin so to speak, the beneficial fruits of such practice. Otherwise, the practice itself would be pointless, as we are not trying to please or appease any higher being who would have any jurisdiction over our destiny.
So, as you can see, very different from the 10 commandments.