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.
Are the precepts just training rules?
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
I thought it might be useful to have a separate discussion on this topic.
So, are the precepts just training rules, and if we think they are does that imply we don't have to take them so seriously, or does it mean we can intepret them more loosely? And are the precepts just about our own individual development, or do they have a wider meaning and application?
And underlying these questions, why is it that we try to behave ethically as Buddhists? What's the point?
So, are the precepts just training rules, and if we think they are does that imply we don't have to take them so seriously, or does it mean we can intepret them more loosely? And are the precepts just about our own individual development, or do they have a wider meaning and application?
And underlying these questions, why is it that we try to behave ethically as Buddhists? What's the point?
0
Comments
i think every religion says to its followers to behave ethically - because all religions aim at human beings to be at peace, which without behaving ethically is not possible.
moreover as per Buddha's teachings, sila leads to samadhi and panna. samadhi leads to panna and sila. panna leads to sila and samadhi. all these 3 support eachother and collectively forms the 8-fold path. so without morality, the path cannot be developed. so behaving ethically by keeping the precepts, forms the basis on which the mind can be further trained to end its defilements and finally to remove ignorance.
This topic comes up more often. This is what I've said before:
Is it - Are the precepts the guidelines to mindfulness and eventually enlightenment?
Or
Is it - Are the precepts 'merely guidelines' to mindfulness and eventually enlightenment?
That's all I'm going to add to this conversation... for a number of reasons.
It's up to us - each and every one of us - to be diligent in our practice, and to examine our motives perception and perspectives.
And as ever, the consequences of our own decisions are for us to accept.
But if we talk about traditions, we tend to generalize. More importantly, I think they are viewed differently in different practitioners.
It seems to me that the 5 Precepts are not merely or just anything, but that rather they have more than one function. Some may require training over a longer period of time; most of us have some difficulty with right speech...forever...and it's a perfection we must work on over time. But the vast majority of us do not murder people, so I would hope that it doesn't take us much training. But adhering to the 5 Precepts may be a process where we -- overtime -- perfect our practice.
But I believe that the 5 Precepts are also a social compact in Buddhist cultures...in fact, beyond just Buddhist cultures, but also all world cultures. If not, then the Buddhist religion would be one of the very rare religions that does not have some form of social compact that directs the morality of the society. As one of my favorite Buddhist websites (from which the following quotes come) says, "If life is a journey, then philosophy is like a compass. It helps us to find our way through the jungle of possibilities that life presents." And that's what I feel is one of the functions of the 5 Precepts. That website goes on to say that "The precepts are a condensed form of Buddhist ethical practice. They are often compared with the ten commandments of Christianity, however, the precepts are different in two respects: First, they are to be taken as recommendations, not commandments. This means the individual is encouraged to use his/her own intelligence to apply these rules in the best possible way. Second, it is the spirit of the precepts -not the text- that counts, hence, the guidelines for ethical conduct must be seen in the larger context of the Eightfold Path. The first five precepts are mandatory for every Buddhist..."
Now I know that I am quoting one source, and other sources may say things differently...or is it that we are interpreting those things differently. For example, to me there is a world of difference between saying The 5 Precepts are merely or just training rules, and saying The 5 Precepts are training rules. The former restricts their importance. The latter states one purpose, but does not preclude others.
Fair questions for my point of view are:
1. Well, why just the 5 Precepts?
2. Where does personal interpretation fit into all of this?
But those questions are another discussion (in my view).
What's been attained, what's to be attained,
are both defiled by one who trains
in line with the afflicted.
Those for whom precepts & practices
are the essence of the training,
for whom celibacy is the essence of service:
this is one extreme.
Those who say, "There's no harm in sensual desires":
this is the second extreme.
Both of these extremes cause the growth of cemeteries,
and cemeteries cause views to grow.
Not directly knowing these two extremes,
some fall short,
some run too far.
But those who directly know them,
don't exist there,
don't conceive things
through them.
And for these people,
there's no whirling through the cycle
to be described. (Bold is mine.)
Source: http://vipassana.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud6-8.php
Beyond that, my own personal approach towards, and understanding of, the precepts is that they're things we voluntarily take on because we believe that there's something skillful about doing so, and which we're encouraged to observe to the best of their ability. They constitute the basic level of virtue the Buddha advises is necessary for the peace of mind conducive to a successful practice, especially in regard to meditation, and they're seen as gifts "that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests" (AN 8.39). As such, I don't see them as being equivalent to commandments dictated by a higher power and/or authority, but more as ethical guidelines. In essence, these precepts are undertaken to protect oneself, as well as others, from the results of our unskillful actions.
Hence the underlying principles behind Buddhist ethics are kamma — the idea that certain actions produce pleasant, painful, or neutral feelings/results — and the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness. Essentially, Buddhist ethics revolve around seeing our desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures (SN 3.8). Nevertheless, Buddhism is ultimately a type of 'religious individualism' in that the teachings on kamma focus on individual actions and their consequences, so ethics are more or less a personal matter that each individual must explore and develop on their own; although guidance is certainly advised.
And all of this helps to inform my opinion that Buddhist ethics aren't entirely black or white, i.e., they aren't seen in terms of ethical and unethical as much as skillful and unskillful. In Buddhism, all intentional actions are understood to have potential consequences, and actions that cause harm to others and/or ourselves are considered to be unskillful and something to be avoided. But the Buddha never condemns people merely for making unskillful choices or breaking the precepts; he simply urges them (albeit with strong language sometimes) to learn from their mistakes and to make an effort to renounce their unskillful behaviour with the understanding that skillful behaviour leads to long-term welfare and happiness.
Certainly our adherence to the precepts will improve in the course of our practice, and skillful actions (done out of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusions) are morally superior (i.e., more beneficial, wholesome, and conducive to pleasure and happiness) than unskillful ones; but we're not expected to be perfect in our morality right away. As the Buddha explains in AN 9.7, only one "whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis [i.e., an arahant], cannot possibly transgress these five principles." At that point, they're no longer precepts, but a natural part of our being.
And I can't speak for anyone else, but I still have a long way to go before I'm completely incapable of transgressing any of the precepts, which is why I simply find it more useful to view the precepts as training rules, guidelines, etc. that I do my best to adhere to and follow while on the gradual path towards nibbana and moral perfection than commandments set in stone. If I happen to break one, instead of condemning myself and inflicting additional suffering on top of that already conditioned by my unskillful action, I simply have to acknowledge the breach and carry on with my practice, striving not to make the same mistakes in the future.
Morality is not an alien concept; we do not depend on divine or enlightened input for their revelation. Morality is human (just like cruelty and lust or whatever). It simply is one color on our palette.
The Buddha just gave a brief summary of the basics of moral behavior; he didn’t invent morality.
What this has to do with the topic? The precepts are - the way I see it - not training rules but signposts.
They point at our own moral capacity; our own capability of being kind and compassionate. When we start following the precepts we discover how this makes our lives more gratifying. At some point we just want to live like that.
And we know for ourselves what to do, once we got to this point. We don’t need some Buddhist wiseacre to tell us what the precepts say we should or shouldn’t do.
For the first nine years of my Zen practice, I almost never heard the precepts mentioned ... or 'enlightenment' either. Yes, there were encouragements to correct this or be on the lookout for that, but the precepts per se were rarely alluded to. But with actual-factual practice, what the precepts enjoined came to make the best sense empirically. This is not to suggest that a nice conversation about the precepts is useless. It is nice to be ethical (what we do in public) but it is probably more useful to be moral (what we do when no one is looking). It is to suggest that experience seems to grow its own good flowers.
Why behave ethically? Surely you jest. Remember the overall theme that underlies the precepts--do no harm? It's all about not harming self or others. Compassion, right? The precepts provide guidelines for how to avoid causing suffering. Buddhism is about the cessation of suffering for self and others. The precepts and the Eightfold Path show us how to achieve that.
The precepts are just what you make of them.
Their number, scope and diversity change within traditions, schools and linages. Each individual watches their relationship to them evolve as their practise progresses..
Zen puts a lot of emphasis on them. This is one of the checks and balances that a school filled with their fair share of spiritual cowboys, really needs. Other schools have their own emphasis's that serves there own checks & balances.
In Zen the precepts are examined and digested the same way one would do with the 8 fold path. The precepts are rules, intent, guidance and sometimes even justifiably breakable as wisdom & fluidity dictates. The karma of following or not following them remains inexorable of whatever name we attach to them.
Today I view them as the mimicry of enlightened action.
The precepts, as well as other Buddhist practices, are the basic rules. We need to internalize them and use them but in order to create a beautiful life we need to be able to move beyond them and not be so strict about them.
"Even if Bodhisattvas enjoy the five sensuous pleasures with unrestricted freedom for kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, as long as they do not give up their bodhicitta, they are said not to break the precepts" (Maharatnakuta Sutra).
Without going into a long-winded disquisition on bodhicittotpada and what it means, including its huge importance, suffice it to say that it is only by bodhicitta that one attains Buddhahood. Thus, to give it up is to break the precepts.
Say you want to build a house on soft ground. In the end it's all about the house you want to build, but you can't build a house on soft ground, so you have to use foundation poles. You have to do effort to get these poles in the ground, but once they are there firmly, you don't have to worry about them anymore. And once you put the house on top, you can't take them out anymore.
Likewise, trying to develop meditation without virtue is bound to fail. But if you have a good practice of virtue, you can build the rest of the path upon it. Soon virtue becomes natural, no need to worry or keep the precepts in mind anymore specifically. Once the path becomes firm and establised, virtue can't be messed with anymore.
So in any case they're good to follow, bad to not follow, but no one can tell you what to do... it's a choice, it's voluntary to uptake these precepts for your own good and the good of others.
The first split after Gautama the Buddha died was between the Mahasanghika and the Sthavira (Skt. elder; Pali, thera). The Theravada claim descent from the Sthavira, but this is most likely not true since the Theravada arose two centuries after the so-called Great Schism.
I don't know about the Maharatnakutasutra being a Mahasamghika work. Do you have an url? I would be very interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharatnakuta_Sutra see: History
heheheheheheheeheheh