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.
Thanks for the info Citta. From a historical perspective Nagarjuna was also a major reformer of ethics in addition to his ideas which influenced all of Tibetan Buddhism. So historically it would be normal to feel attraction to vows and so forth. But I guess not all sanghas concern themselves. Are you from a nyingma or gelukpa tradition?
Neither Jeffrey..my first Vajrayana teacher was Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who was a .Karma Kagyu teacher. I am now a Dzogchen student in the Dzogchen Community of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. Among my fellow students are a Theravadin abbot..Ajahn Amaro,Abbot of Amaravati Monastery who I assume lives by the Bhikkhu samaya ..a well known Sufi teacher , and a number of Catholic monks and Nuns who were not required to take Refuge or follow Buddhist precepts. Chogyal Namkhai Norbus view is that Buddhism is a perfectly good vehicle for Dzogchen, but is not essential.
And since we're being so honest here, I personally think that the reason that quite a few people minimize the Precepts -- or in some cases certain Precepts -- is because some people just want to do what they enjoy doing (e.g., DON'T EAT A HAMBURGER, but let's go down to Hop's Bar).
I think you're right, that's why debates on meat-eating, fishing, alchohol, etc can get so heated. We get very attached to certain behaviours and don't want to give them up, so we get defensive and start rationalising.
@Citta At least 90 % of the laity of any Soto Zen temple and monastery that I've lived in took the 10 precepts. That is the difference (I suspect) between putting your body into a practise and putting one's typing fingers into it. I don't know if those who lay ordain and take the precepts, train differently than those who don't but out there in the non cyber world, taking on the precepts was a fundamental component for most Soto Zen practitioners who spent anytime in a Sangha.
I dont doubt the accuracy of your statement at all how... Just as I dont doubt Brad Warner's or the Reverend Jundo Cohen's very different account of THEIR Soto practice. see Hardcorezen and Treeleaf zendo respectively.
I dont doubt the accuracy of your statement at all how... Just as I dont doubt Brad Warner's or the Reverend Jundo Cohen's very different account of THEIR Soto practice. see Hardcorezen and Treeleaf zendo respectively.
It has just struck me... I dont post on Zen Forum International but the debate between those who see Soto Zen as a sutric path involving Refuge and Precepts and those who do not see those as of the essence has occupied much of the debate on that forum for as long as it has existed.
@Cita I don't know anything about the Zen Forum International or a debate about the importance of precepts. I assume this would be a modern against traditional approach or perhaps the following of a Soto linage that I'm not experienced with. My interactions with Soto Zen linage's beyond my own have probably focused more on the celebration of what we both share as opposed to what might be different. Being Canadian, that's probably a cultural certainty, like death before embarrassment. And so I am correcting my stance to just say that I've only practised where the precepts were a respected teaching that only new Buddhist had not yet taken upon themselves. It is logical to think that aspiring Buddhists who were not comfortable with precepts would find some other place to practise.
Some people will think I'm a shit Buddhist, but let 'em
I've never heard of a Buddhist apostate, at least, not in the sense that people who leave the religion are blacklisted.
Well you should repent then cause they are there for your own good. At the time of taking them you could have told them you can only uphold 4 Precepts.
The Five Precepts are not rules. They are tools.
Think of Buddhism as being like a sport ... the effort and training and discipline and work that is required. So if your coach says, "wear these track shoes if you want to increase your performance" .. you don't HAVE to wear the shoes. It is up to you.
The purpose of the Five Precepts is to make you pause instead of automatically go into one or another "escape routes".
Take lying for instance. We get caught with our hand in the cookie jar and the first thing we think is "uh-oh". And right after that, the second thing we think is "How can I get OUT of this?" and so we make up some excuse. We lie or mislead.
But if we have promised ourselves to try to NOT lie (one of the Precepts) ... after thinking "uh-oh" we do NOT run from our discomfort. We do not try to get out of the situation. Instead, we observe it. We learn from it. We learn about how our desire and aversions are the source of our discomfort. We examine what is going on inside of us. If we just go ahead and automatically lie, we never see how we trap ourselves.
The Precept to stay sober is a bit of an exception to the other 4 Precepts. This is partially a learning tool ... how does it feel to yearn for a drink, snort or toke, and NOT follow through on it? But far more important, is the fact that getting high/stoned/drunk blurs the clarity of our mind. We cannot BE a Buddhism when we are intoxicated. We cannot maintain our "mindfulness". Not only do we not learn about ourselves while we are intoxicated, but we also set negative imprints in our mind (the imprint/karma of having a mind that doesn't work well), and we also are likely to take unwise actions that harm others and that produce negative imprints/karmas within us.
There is no excommunication in Buddhism.
There is no "joining" either.
And there are no dharma police waiting to arrest you if you are not a good Buddhist (whatever that means).
Just as a person is an athlete or just playing around or a couch potato, Buddhism is what YOU make of it. If you want the benefits, if you want the inner change, you have to work at it. To continue the analogy, no one gets buff muscles from lying around, watching TV and eating chips.
Most of us (myself included) are pretty proud if we spend an hour a day on our practices and then walk away from the meditation cushion but then go through our day caught up in our thoughts, plans, urges and emotions .. forgetting our Buddhist practice altogether.
We really don't much out of Buddhism if that is all we do. Still, we DO end up further ahead than it we didn't do anything at all.
At the very least, a serious Buddhist .. someone who hopes to stop being unhappy .. will work up to an hour of meditation a day, and try to remember to be mindful through their activities by making and trying to keep the Five Precepts Vows.
One thing that makes a huge difference is when we start to observe within ourselves that it is our very desire to never have unpleasantness that is what makes us unhappy.
My teacher laughingly gives us an English mantra: "What's the big deal?" (to be accompanied with a shrug of the shoulders).
@Citta said:
And Vajrayana practitioners will continue to attend Tsok Pujas where participating in alcohol is mandatory.
There is no single pan- Buddhist view of the issues involved.
Not even when contemplating the first precept..I was present when one of the very seniormost Tibetan Teachers said that if you became aware that a terrorist was about to detonate an atomic bomb then your Buddhist duty is to stop him . even if that meant killing him.
Its a wonderful thing to have an ecumenical Buddhist forum..but absolute statements will only ever be consistent to a particular tradition.
The Dzogchen tradition within which I practice is authentic and ancient and has no hard and fast rule about alcohol ( for example ) at all. The same is also true I believe of many Zen lineages as well as the Nyingma lineage in Vajrayana..
Regarding the Vajrayana Tsoks ... It is a sip of alcohol ... as much as fits into the palm of one hand (most of it spills out as we raise it to our mouth anyway). We don't get intoxicated from it. It don't know if your teacher says it is mandatory ... my teacher (a Tibetan Geshe from Namgyal monastery in India) does not make it mandatory.
Comments
I am now a Dzogchen student in the Dzogchen Community of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. Among my fellow students are a Theravadin abbot..Ajahn Amaro,Abbot of Amaravati Monastery who I assume lives by the Bhikkhu samaya ..a well known Sufi teacher , and a number of Catholic monks and Nuns who were not required to take Refuge or follow Buddhist precepts.
Chogyal Namkhai Norbus view is that Buddhism is a perfectly good vehicle for Dzogchen, but is not essential.
Yes, I think that's correct. And the precepts work in conjunction with other aspects of the 8-fold path, including Right Resolve:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.html
At least 90 % of the laity of any Soto Zen temple and monastery that I've lived in took the 10 precepts. That is the difference (I suspect) between putting your body into a practise and putting one's typing fingers into it.
I don't know if those who lay ordain and take the precepts, train differently than those who don't but out there in the non cyber world, taking on the precepts was a fundamental component for most Soto Zen practitioners who spent anytime in a Sangha.
zen
Just as I dont doubt Brad Warner's or the Reverend Jundo Cohen's very different account of THEIR Soto practice. see Hardcorezen and Treeleaf zendo respectively.
I dont post on Zen Forum International but the debate between those who see Soto Zen as a sutric path involving Refuge and Precepts and those who do not see those as of the essence has occupied much of the debate on that forum for as long as it has existed.
I don't know anything about the Zen Forum International or a debate about the importance of precepts. I assume this would be a modern against traditional approach or perhaps the following of a Soto linage that I'm not experienced with.
My interactions with Soto Zen linage's beyond my own have probably focused more on the celebration of what we both share as opposed to what might be different. Being Canadian, that's probably a cultural certainty, like death before embarrassment.
And so I am correcting my stance to just say that I've only practised where the precepts were a respected teaching that only new Buddhist had not yet taken upon themselves.
It is logical to think that aspiring Buddhists who were not comfortable with precepts would find some other place to practise.
Well you should repent then cause they are there for your own good. At the time of taking them you could have told them you can only uphold 4 Precepts.
You are have a big self bro....
The Five Precepts are not rules. They are tools.
Think of Buddhism as being like a sport ... the effort and training and discipline and work that is required. So if your coach says, "wear these track shoes if you want to increase your performance" .. you don't HAVE to wear the shoes. It is up to you.
The purpose of the Five Precepts is to make you pause instead of automatically go into one or another "escape routes".
Take lying for instance. We get caught with our hand in the cookie jar and the first thing we think is "uh-oh". And right after that, the second thing we think is "How can I get OUT of this?" and so we make up some excuse. We lie or mislead.
But if we have promised ourselves to try to NOT lie (one of the Precepts) ... after thinking "uh-oh" we do NOT run from our discomfort. We do not try to get out of the situation. Instead, we observe it. We learn from it. We learn about how our desire and aversions are the source of our discomfort. We examine what is going on inside of us. If we just go ahead and automatically lie, we never see how we trap ourselves.
The Precept to stay sober is a bit of an exception to the other 4 Precepts. This is partially a learning tool ... how does it feel to yearn for a drink, snort or toke, and NOT follow through on it? But far more important, is the fact that getting high/stoned/drunk blurs the clarity of our mind. We cannot BE a Buddhism when we are intoxicated. We cannot maintain our "mindfulness". Not only do we not learn about ourselves while we are intoxicated, but we also set negative imprints in our mind (the imprint/karma of having a mind that doesn't work well), and we also are likely to take unwise actions that harm others and that produce negative imprints/karmas within us.
There is no excommunication in Buddhism.
There is no "joining" either.
And there are no dharma police waiting to arrest you if you are not a good Buddhist (whatever that means).
Just as a person is an athlete or just playing around or a couch potato, Buddhism is what YOU make of it. If you want the benefits, if you want the inner change, you have to work at it. To continue the analogy, no one gets buff muscles from lying around, watching TV and eating chips.
Most of us (myself included) are pretty proud if we spend an hour a day on our practices and then walk away from the meditation cushion but then go through our day caught up in our thoughts, plans, urges and emotions .. forgetting our Buddhist practice altogether.
We really don't much out of Buddhism if that is all we do. Still, we DO end up further ahead than it we didn't do anything at all.
At the very least, a serious Buddhist .. someone who hopes to stop being unhappy .. will work up to an hour of meditation a day, and try to remember to be mindful through their activities by making and trying to keep the Five Precepts Vows.
One thing that makes a huge difference is when we start to observe within ourselves that it is our very desire to never have unpleasantness that is what makes us unhappy.
My teacher laughingly gives us an English mantra: "What's the big deal?" (to be accompanied with a shrug of the shoulders).
Regarding the Vajrayana Tsoks ... It is a sip of alcohol ... as much as fits into the palm of one hand (most of it spills out as we raise it to our mouth anyway). We don't get intoxicated from it. It don't know if your teacher says it is mandatory ... my teacher (a Tibetan Geshe from Namgyal monastery in India) does not make it mandatory.