Are the ten wholesome actions more specific than 5 precepts?

minimayhen88

I am interested to know if the 'Ten Wholesome Acions' are more specific, than the 5 precepts - that may be interpreted more broadly.

For instance, I would interpret the fist precept, as 'harmlessness' ..... whereas the 'Ten Wholesome Actions' seem to me, to be more specific, in that one must avoid killing. The same with the 4th precept of no false speech - which to me should include all forms of deception .....whereas the 4th of the ten wholesome actions seems more specific in saying 'no lying.'

person

The 10 wholesome/unwholesome acts are even less rules than the precepts. They are as much a rule that Buddhists 'must' follow as its a rule that fire must burn stuff (its just the nature of fire, it doesn't burn stuff because its supposed to or feels obliged to). They are more a diagnosis of what causes suffering, like saying eating McDonald's every meal will cause problems for your weight and health. You can say that this means you shouldn't eat McDonalds but that is an extra step that an individual adds that isn't a part of the diagnosis.

vinlyn

I guess I'm confused. I thought the Precepts and the Ten Wholesome Actions were from the Dhamma. Or aren't they?

person

I guess I'm confused. I thought the Precepts and the Ten Wholesome Actions were from the Dhamma. Or aren't they?

They are, the ten unwholesome actions are like your doctor saying too much salt is bad for you. The precepts are like saying don't add salt to your diet. They are similar but one is the diagnosis the other is the treatment.

Dharmakara

Good simile.

vinlyn

I guess I'm confused. I thought the Precepts and the Ten Wholesome Actions were from the Dhamma. Or aren't they?

They are, the ten unwholesome actions are like your doctor saying too much salt is bad for you. The precepts are like saying don't add salt to your diet. They are similar but one is the diagnosis the other is the treatment.

I am not a perfect follower of the Dhamma, but I wouldn't read something in the Dhamma and say, essentially, they're not important to follow.

Dharmakara

Vinlyn, did I miss something? Did Person say they were unimportant or possibily just the choice of words?

vinlyn

^^ I have long felt that this forum, in general -- not @Person specifically -- is almost dismissive of the Precepts. I hate to think how many times it has been expressed that they are not commandments or rules...something far less. If they're so minor in relative importance, why did Buddha talk about them? Why do people on the forum give them so little relative importance, while going on and on speculating about other Buddhist issues where we really don't know what the facts are?

Dharmakara

I know what you mean --- some say they're not commandments in the Judeo-Christian sense, something which I agree with, but they're certainly not mere guidelines or "post-it notes" along the path. When it comes to precepts, it's not only important to recognize the written letter, but also the spirit they were first given.

vinlyn

^^ I like the way you put that!

person

@vinlyn There are 3 unwholsome actions of mind, covetousness, ill will and wrong view. If they are seen like rules to be followed instead of a diagnosis of a problem how can you simply decide not to have wrong view? Every moment you believe in an inherently existent self you are breaking that rule and just saying don't believe that does no good. With the precepts it is possible to decide to follow them or not.

The unwholesome actions are to be abandoned and the opposite or 10 wholesome actions are to be adopted but they are a explanation of the causes of suffering not a list of things to follow.

vinlyn

I'm sorry, Person. To you, what you have said, has meaning. To me, it has no meaning.

To me, Precepts are meant to be followed. To me, wholesome actions are meant to be followed.

Naturally, one can choose not to follow some or all of the Precepts, or some or all of the wholesome actions. Just like, every single day, millions of Christians, whether they be Protestant or Catholic, decide to not follow some of the Commandments. And frankly, most do not believe that will result in them going to Hell.

I tire of all the philosophizing. Either one follows the Dhamma, or one doesn't. I don't follow all aspects of the Dhamma. Either way is fine. But philosophizing away the parts one doesn't like -- such as the Precepts -- doesn't make it right.

person

I hear what you're saying, I follow the precepts, but there's a reason these actions and the precepts are seperate. The precepts are rules, these are a list of what causes us to suffer. Of course it makes sense to try to not do the things that will cause us suffering in the long run, but there are no vows to try to live according to the 10 wholesome actions. To go back to my previous example, how can one possibly follow a rule to not view the self as inherently existing, it would be like saying its a rule that we should play mozart on the piano. We can train ourselves to learn to play the piano really well but we can't just vow to play the moonlight sonata.

Buddhism isn't just a list of things to do or not do, its a methodology for developing an attitude that makes doing right and avoiding wrong a natural part of oneself.

Dharmakara

Although I don't always agree with her take on things, maybe Barabara O'Brien summed it up on her blog:

Most religions have moral and ethical rules and commandments. Buddhism has Precepts, but it's important to understand that the Buddhist Precepts are not a list of rules to follow.

In some religions moral laws are believed to have come from God, and breaking those laws is a sin or transgression against God. But Buddhism doesn't have a God, and the Precepts are not commandments. However, that doesn't exactly mean they're optional, either.

Simply, if one is not attempting to follow their precepts, with the five precepts being a bare minimum, then they are not practing the Dharma, period.

vinlyn

I hear what you're saying, I follow the precepts, but there's a reason these actions and the precepts are seperate. The precepts are rules, these are a list of what causes us to suffer. Of course it makes sense to try to not do the things that will cause us suffering in the long run, but there are no vows to try to live according to the 10 wholesome actions. To go back to my previous example, how can one possibly follow a rule to not view the self as inherently existing, it would be like saying its a rule that we should play mozart on the piano. We can train ourselves to learn to play the piano really well but we can't just vow to play the moonlight sonata.

Buddhism isn't just a list of things to do or not do, its a methodology for developing an attitude that makes doing right and avoiding wrong a natural part of oneself.

In my moral beliefs there's an inherent "vow" to try to live according to wholesome actions. I guess -- in general -- it's already an attitude that mostly came long before I became attracted to Buddhism.

vinlyn

Although I don't always agree with her take on things, maybe Barabara O'Brien summed it up on her blog:

Most religions have moral and ethical rules and commandments. Buddhism has Precepts, but it's important to understand that the Buddhist Precepts are not a list of rules to follow.

In some religions moral laws are believed to have come from God, and breaking those laws is a sin or transgression against God. But Buddhism doesn't have a God, and the Precepts are not commandments. However, that doesn't exactly mean they're optional, either.

Simply, if one is not attempting to follow their precepts, with the five precepts being a bare minimum, then they are not practing the Dharma, period.

Again, you and I are somewhat on the same page.