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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'll have to think about your first point....
As for your second one, I have no doubts about that; but there is also more folklore and superstition, elsewhere.... so I think it depends where you are, on how you implement what you learn.
@vinlyn said:Okay, let me restate with a provocative statement to make the point:
>
How would the average person feel if someone said, "Buddhism is lawlessness"?
>
I think that's a factual statement IF the precepts are not rules.
Now that's an interesting point. People do love their laws and rules, don't they? So is Buddhism "lawless"? Done correctly, it is. And thank Buddha for that. Other religions are full of laws and rules, and has it made a bit of difference to the suffering of the world? Not at all. Neither has it made a difference in how people act. People do what they desire in spite of the law. We have an infinite capacity to excuse our behavior. So "Do not kill" is a religious law, and a big one for the world religions. Hasn't stopped a single war, has it? Good Christian folk still support the death penalty here in the U.S. We could go on and on about how laws don't stop people from bad behavior.
Because laws are something forced upon us. It's something external to ourselves. We have no problem playing semantics and tacking on excuses since we didn't make the law.
A precept, on the other hand, is a warning. It forces people to struggle with their own moral compass. It's not "Don't do this because we tell you not to." but "If you do this, you've been warned about the consequences."
As for your second one, I have no doubts about that; but there is also more folklore and superstition, elsewhere.... so I think it depends where you are, on how you implement what you learn.
@Cinorjer said:
Now that's an interesting point. People do love their laws and rules, don't they? So is Buddhism "lawless"? Done correctly, it is. And thank Buddha for that. Other religions are full of laws and rules, and has it made a bit of difference to the suffering of the world? Not at all. Neither has it made a difference in how people act. People do what they desire in spite of the law. We have an infinite capacity to excuse our behavior. So "Do not kill" is a religious law, and a big one for the world religions. Hasn't stopped a single war, has it? Good Christian folk still support the death penalty here in the U.S. We could go on and on about how laws don't stop people from bad behavior. Because laws are something forced upon us. It's something external to ourselves. We have no problem playing semantics and tacking on excuses since we didn't make the law. A precept, on the other hand, is a warning. It forces people to struggle with their own moral compass. It's not "Don't do this because we tell you not to." but "If you do this, you've been warned about the consequences."
People do love laws and rules.
People do love having no laws or rules.
I have trouble saying which statement is more true.
If I agreed that that's what Buddhism teachers (that there are no rules/laws; and I don't agree), then I would still have to point out that the most-Buddhist countries have been just as rife with war and bad behavior as the non-Buddhist countries.
This is a quotation from David Brazier's book "Zen Therapy." I used it on the thread of Pure Land, but I thought it makes an interesting point on ethics, morality and inner compass in general. It's a bit long, but worth taking into account:
"From the western perspective, ethics and morality are generally conceived as limiting factors curbing the excesses of the individual. They are boundaries which prevent a person from straying, just as the fence around a field prevents a bull from wandering and causing damage. This model of ethics as a boundary portrays morals as a source of frustration, necessary but irksome. [...]
Since buddha nature is our inseparable unity with the whole of existence, ethics are not seen as a restriction, but as a liberation. They are the way to realize our core nature and consequently are the path of truth and happiness. Moral codes are simply an approximate description of the life of a fully realized being. A Buddhist will say, 'How can we possibly find peace within ourselves unless we live a pure life, in harmony with others?' In the quest for peace of mind, the way to start is by re-examining our relations with the world around us. Whenever the Buddha was asked to describe the path he taught, he started by talking about ethics (sila). Sila means to cultivate our fundamental ethical nature. This is the first step to training the mind as well as the foundation for future happiness. [...]
The syllable 'buddh' indicates a process of clear perception. A buddha is one who perceives the world just as it is. Consequently, a buddha is also one who acts in a clean and clear manner, doing things just as they are, without fuss. This characteristic is called tathata, ('thusness' or 'just-so-ness'). It suggests one who lives in a totally straightforward way, from a mind which is completely clear of neurotic distortion.
This state of liberated mind may also be equated with complete mental health. [...] The Buddhist precepts are a description of a 'fully functioning buddha.'
[...] In Buddhism, to judge or complain about others would be to break the precepts oneself. The precepts exist purely to enable each of us to find our way back to our own heart.
[...] Although we are almost all of us subject to neurotic, psychotic and hysterical distortions in our perception of the world, we all do also have an original pristine, clear nature: an unsullied basis for real perception and contact. The buddhata is like the sun behind the clouds.
[...] For a westerner, liberation is liable to be considered in terms of eliminating frustrations which stand in the way of getting what they believe their self needs in order to be happy. This invariably brings a person into conflict with at least some aspects of the natural or social environment. Ethics are external to the self or they are a matter of personal choice, as though an individual could change the laws of the universe by wishing them different. From the Buddhist perspective, however, ethics are not an external limitation, nor something we can shop around for. Rather, they are the voice of our buddha nature crying out from within. Our deepest nature wants us to live in harmony with the universe because we are in it and it is us. To act in an unethical way is to act against ourselves. Liberation is thus in no way served by kicking over the traces. Indeed, the liberated mind does not perceive any traces."
That's exactly how I've always understood it. Other religions have rules/laws that are inherently evil actions "just because" (or because some deity said so), while Buddhism has "precepts" that are to prevent harmful consequences and allow progress on the Path. It's a lot more humanistic in its outlook, a lot more realistic and pragmatic.
The precepts are "rules of thumb". We apply situational ethics to those rules of thumb, such that we wouldn't have any problem lying to save an innocent person's life (the old Nazis-at-the-door morality test).
Deontological rulesets, on the other hand, are like the rules parents give to children that are never to be broken... because the child doesn't know in which situations they can (and especially should) be broken. Even people who subscribe to deontological rules like the Ten Commandments don't treat them as unbreakable (they'd still pass that morality test, favoring saving an innocent life over following the rule).
As @dharmamom's excellent and relevant quote suggests the precepts are an emulation and expression of the enlightened mind. Most of us samsara dwellers waver between our ignorance, self interest and perpetuated loops . . .
People do love having no laws or rules.
I have trouble saying which statement is more true.
If I agreed that that's what Buddhism teachers (that there are no rules/laws; and I don't agree), then I would still have to point out that the most-Buddhist countries have been just as rife with war and bad behavior as the non-Buddhist countries.
You assume all people have a moral compass.
Oh, people love having laws and rules. They just want to be the ones making the laws and rules for their own benefit.
I think I was very unclear about my point, my fault. My point is that religious laws and rules don't make a difference in a person's own conduct. Faced with a religious "Thou shalt not" on one hand and a burning desire on the other, people continue to suffer.
These religious laws are effective weapons against other people, mostly. That's why the term "heresy" was invented. Sure, even Buddhists do this.
So I guess my only point is, Buddhism doesn't need a set of laws and neither do those other religions, because obeying a set of laws does not end suffering. So focusing on whether the Precepts are guidelines or suggestions or rules is a distraction.
I guess I wonder, why it matters? If someone else takes the precepts as guidelines when you consider them rules, who cares? Does them not following the precepts the way you think they should be followed, impact your practice? I'm just not understanding the desire to go in circles over the semantics of it.
@karasti said:
I guess I wonder, why it matters? If someone else takes the precepts as guidelines when you consider them rules, who cares? Does them not following the precepts the way you think they should be followed, impact your practice? I'm just not understanding the desire to go in circles over the semantics of it.
In terms of merely a religion, it doesn't matter so much. But religions are just a part of a wider culture in a region or country, and when different people are all over the map in terms of cultural norms it often causes tension (as can readily be seen right now in Buddhist Thailand (most of the country) and Muslim Thailand (the southern peninsula where sectarian violence is rampant).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
From what I have seen in discussions, I think most other Buddhists are of the general opinion that what is happening in Thailand currently, is far from what Buddhism represents, right across the board, never mind taking 'Rules and Reg's into account....
@federica said:
From what I have seen in discussions, I think most other Buddhists are of the general opinion that what is happening in Thailand currently, is far from what Buddhism represents, right across the board, never mind taking 'Rules and Reg's into account....
It depends on what you are talking about in Thailand "currently". If you are talking about the coup (etc), that has little to do with Buddhism. If you are talking about the conflict between Buddhists and Muslims in the South, which has been going on for decades and decades, Buddhism is very much involved in that -- it is a conflict between the official government (which is officially Buddhist and a minority in the South) and the majority of the people in the South who are Muslim and feel highly discriminated against by the government. This goes back to a time when there was a conflict in where to draw the border between Malaysia and Thailand, and the Buddhist government in Krung Thep (Bangkok) declared that certain Buddhist temples in the peninsula made it clear it was not Malay territory, but should rightfully belong to the Thais. The current coup sitatuion (yeah Army!) has little or nothing to do with the tension in the south, the latter being purely religious in nature.
When you say "most other Buddhists", how much input have you gotten from the Buddhists in SE Asia?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2014
Ah. Got me there. None that I know of. I was speaking mainly from the perspective of the external 'watchers'.
I was referring to the disquiet between Buddhist/Muslim factions, which has resulted in some pretty "un-Buddhist" things going on.
But I too am an outsider, and probably can only see the tip, of the tip of the iceberg.
I'm not judging - although it may come across that way - but I'm more saddened about the whole matter.... and I don't like what's happening. If that's 'judging' I apologise for appearing to take the moral high ground....
If we didn't "judge" "things", we wouldn't have a forum. Nothing wrong with making judgements...unless one simply stereotypes or hurts people while judging.
@vinlyn said:
When you say "most other Buddhists", how much input have you gotten from the Buddhists in SE Asia?
Actually, Fede is quite clear on where her info comes from.
@federica said:
From what I have seen in discussions
It's not like she's "speaking out of school" on the subject. She doesn't claim to any knowledge of the matter apart from hearsay, which she clearly explains.
We all know you livde in Thailand for awhile, so I guess you're the authority, but Fede isn't claiming any such distinction.
@vinlyn said:
It depends on what you are talking about in Thailand "currently". If you are talking about the coup (etc), that has little to do with Buddhism. If you are talking about the conflict between Buddhists and Muslims in the South, which has been going on for decades and decades,
You need not have lived in Thailand to know that. There plenty of sources online that explain the situation in Thailand very clearly and from many differen POV's and someone can learn it all without having to spend 1 hour in that country.
and I think it's fine to talk about what's going on in other countries and cultures, considering how many countries are included here, we should talk about it. But it seems that sort of topic best deserves it's own thread, and doesn't really have a place when someone simply asks about fishing. Bringing in the depths of Thailand's Buddhist conflict doesn't do anything to help the OP determine what he should use to determine his course of action. Bringing up the precepts certainly can help, and even discussion about the precepts can help. But discussions about the precepts with an underlying theme of Thailand's Buddhist/Muslim strife that doesn't apply to the question at hand makes it hard to follow the thread. IMO, anyhow.
I certainly realize and understand that where Thailand is concerned, you have a unique point of view, one that most of us don't have, and it's certainly helpful to bring up the differences. Sometimes. Not every time, though. There is no Buddhist cultural norm as far as NB goes, and sometimes it seems like you are wishing there was one, or hoping to institute one by getting everyone to agree with your view of the precepts because you are so adamant that other views on them are incorrect.
Comments
I'll have to think about your first point....
As for your second one, I have no doubts about that; but there is also more folklore and superstition, elsewhere.... so I think it depends where you are, on how you implement what you learn.
>
>
I think that's a factual statement IF the precepts are not rules.
Now that's an interesting point. People do love their laws and rules, don't they? So is Buddhism "lawless"? Done correctly, it is. And thank Buddha for that. Other religions are full of laws and rules, and has it made a bit of difference to the suffering of the world? Not at all. Neither has it made a difference in how people act. People do what they desire in spite of the law. We have an infinite capacity to excuse our behavior. So "Do not kill" is a religious law, and a big one for the world religions. Hasn't stopped a single war, has it? Good Christian folk still support the death penalty here in the U.S. We could go on and on about how laws don't stop people from bad behavior.
Because laws are something forced upon us. It's something external to ourselves. We have no problem playing semantics and tacking on excuses since we didn't make the law.
A precept, on the other hand, is a warning. It forces people to struggle with their own moral compass. It's not "Don't do this because we tell you not to." but "If you do this, you've been warned about the consequences."
True.
People do love laws and rules.
People do love having no laws or rules.
I have trouble saying which statement is more true.
If I agreed that that's what Buddhism teachers (that there are no rules/laws; and I don't agree), then I would still have to point out that the most-Buddhist countries have been just as rife with war and bad behavior as the non-Buddhist countries.
You assume all people have a moral compass.
This is a quotation from David Brazier's book "Zen Therapy." I used it on the thread of Pure Land, but I thought it makes an interesting point on ethics, morality and inner compass in general. It's a bit long, but worth taking into account:
"From the western perspective, ethics and morality are generally conceived as limiting factors curbing the excesses of the individual. They are boundaries which prevent a person from straying, just as the fence around a field prevents a bull from wandering and causing damage. This model of ethics as a boundary portrays morals as a source of frustration, necessary but irksome. [...]
Since buddha nature is our inseparable unity with the whole of existence, ethics are not seen as a restriction, but as a liberation. They are the way to realize our core nature and consequently are the path of truth and happiness. Moral codes are simply an approximate description of the life of a fully realized being. A Buddhist will say, 'How can we possibly find peace within ourselves unless we live a pure life, in harmony with others?' In the quest for peace of mind, the way to start is by re-examining our relations with the world around us. Whenever the Buddha was asked to describe the path he taught, he started by talking about ethics (sila). Sila means to cultivate our fundamental ethical nature. This is the first step to training the mind as well as the foundation for future happiness. [...]
The syllable 'buddh' indicates a process of clear perception. A buddha is one who perceives the world just as it is. Consequently, a buddha is also one who acts in a clean and clear manner, doing things just as they are, without fuss. This characteristic is called tathata, ('thusness' or 'just-so-ness'). It suggests one who lives in a totally straightforward way, from a mind which is completely clear of neurotic distortion.
This state of liberated mind may also be equated with complete mental health. [...] The Buddhist precepts are a description of a 'fully functioning buddha.'
[...] In Buddhism, to judge or complain about others would be to break the precepts oneself. The precepts exist purely to enable each of us to find our way back to our own heart.
[...] Although we are almost all of us subject to neurotic, psychotic and hysterical distortions in our perception of the world, we all do also have an original pristine, clear nature: an unsullied basis for real perception and contact. The buddhata is like the sun behind the clouds.
[...] For a westerner, liberation is liable to be considered in terms of eliminating frustrations which stand in the way of getting what they believe their self needs in order to be happy. This invariably brings a person into conflict with at least some aspects of the natural or social environment. Ethics are external to the self or they are a matter of personal choice, as though an individual could change the laws of the universe by wishing them different. From the Buddhist perspective, however, ethics are not an external limitation, nor something we can shop around for. Rather, they are the voice of our buddha nature crying out from within. Our deepest nature wants us to live in harmony with the universe because we are in it and it is us. To act in an unethical way is to act against ourselves. Liberation is thus in no way served by kicking over the traces. Indeed, the liberated mind does not perceive any traces."
@vinlyn, No rules; only consequences.
That's exactly how I've always understood it. Other religions have rules/laws that are inherently evil actions "just because" (or because some deity said so), while Buddhism has "precepts" that are to prevent harmful consequences and allow progress on the Path. It's a lot more humanistic in its outlook, a lot more realistic and pragmatic.
The precepts are "rules of thumb". We apply situational ethics to those rules of thumb, such that we wouldn't have any problem lying to save an innocent person's life (the old Nazis-at-the-door morality test).
Deontological rulesets, on the other hand, are like the rules parents give to children that are never to be broken... because the child doesn't know in which situations they can (and especially should) be broken. Even people who subscribe to deontological rules like the Ten Commandments don't treat them as unbreakable (they'd still pass that morality test, favoring saving an innocent life over following the rule).
As @dharmamom's excellent and relevant quote suggests the precepts are an emulation and expression of the enlightened mind. Most of us samsara dwellers waver between our ignorance, self interest and perpetuated loops . . .
. . . and now back to the directed . . .
People do love having no laws or rules.
I have trouble saying which statement is more true.
If I agreed that that's what Buddhism teachers (that there are no rules/laws; and I don't agree), then I would still have to point out that the most-Buddhist countries have been just as rife with war and bad behavior as the non-Buddhist countries.
You assume all people have a moral compass.
Oh, people love having laws and rules. They just want to be the ones making the laws and rules for their own benefit.
I think I was very unclear about my point, my fault. My point is that religious laws and rules don't make a difference in a person's own conduct. Faced with a religious "Thou shalt not" on one hand and a burning desire on the other, people continue to suffer.
These religious laws are effective weapons against other people, mostly. That's why the term "heresy" was invented. Sure, even Buddhists do this.
So I guess my only point is, Buddhism doesn't need a set of laws and neither do those other religions, because obeying a set of laws does not end suffering. So focusing on whether the Precepts are guidelines or suggestions or rules is a distraction.
For you it's a distraction.
I think you're right.
I guess I wonder, why it matters? If someone else takes the precepts as guidelines when you consider them rules, who cares? Does them not following the precepts the way you think they should be followed, impact your practice? I'm just not understanding the desire to go in circles over the semantics of it.
rectified? :scratch: .
@lobster, I have deleted your LOL, if you'd like to rectify.....
.
In terms of merely a religion, it doesn't matter so much. But religions are just a part of a wider culture in a region or country, and when different people are all over the map in terms of cultural norms it often causes tension (as can readily be seen right now in Buddhist Thailand (most of the country) and Muslim Thailand (the southern peninsula where sectarian violence is rampant).
From what I have seen in discussions, I think most other Buddhists are of the general opinion that what is happening in Thailand currently, is far from what Buddhism represents, right across the board, never mind taking 'Rules and Reg's into account....
It depends on what you are talking about in Thailand "currently". If you are talking about the coup (etc), that has little to do with Buddhism. If you are talking about the conflict between Buddhists and Muslims in the South, which has been going on for decades and decades, Buddhism is very much involved in that -- it is a conflict between the official government (which is officially Buddhist and a minority in the South) and the majority of the people in the South who are Muslim and feel highly discriminated against by the government. This goes back to a time when there was a conflict in where to draw the border between Malaysia and Thailand, and the Buddhist government in Krung Thep (Bangkok) declared that certain Buddhist temples in the peninsula made it clear it was not Malay territory, but should rightfully belong to the Thais. The current coup sitatuion (yeah Army!) has little or nothing to do with the tension in the south, the latter being purely religious in nature.
When you say "most other Buddhists", how much input have you gotten from the Buddhists in SE Asia?
Ah. Got me there. None that I know of. I was speaking mainly from the perspective of the external 'watchers'.
I was referring to the disquiet between Buddhist/Muslim factions, which has resulted in some pretty "un-Buddhist" things going on.
But I too am an outsider, and probably can only see the tip, of the tip of the iceberg.
I'm not judging - although it may come across that way - but I'm more saddened about the whole matter.... and I don't like what's happening. If that's 'judging' I apologise for appearing to take the moral high ground....
If we didn't "judge" "things", we wouldn't have a forum. Nothing wrong with making judgements...unless one simply stereotypes or hurts people while judging.
Actually, Fede is quite clear on where her info comes from.
It's not like she's "speaking out of school" on the subject. She doesn't claim to any knowledge of the matter apart from hearsay, which she clearly explains.
We all know you livde in Thailand for awhile, so I guess you're the authority, but Fede isn't claiming any such distinction.
You need not have lived in Thailand to know that. There plenty of sources online that explain the situation in Thailand very clearly and from many differen POV's and someone can learn it all without having to spend 1 hour in that country.
and I think it's fine to talk about what's going on in other countries and cultures, considering how many countries are included here, we should talk about it. But it seems that sort of topic best deserves it's own thread, and doesn't really have a place when someone simply asks about fishing. Bringing in the depths of Thailand's Buddhist conflict doesn't do anything to help the OP determine what he should use to determine his course of action. Bringing up the precepts certainly can help, and even discussion about the precepts can help. But discussions about the precepts with an underlying theme of Thailand's Buddhist/Muslim strife that doesn't apply to the question at hand makes it hard to follow the thread. IMO, anyhow.
I certainly realize and understand that where Thailand is concerned, you have a unique point of view, one that most of us don't have, and it's certainly helpful to bring up the differences. Sometimes. Not every time, though. There is no Buddhist cultural norm as far as NB goes, and sometimes it seems like you are wishing there was one, or hoping to institute one by getting everyone to agree with your view of the precepts because you are so adamant that other views on them are incorrect.
A good post, Karasti.
However, I don't argue for my view of the Precepts anymore than others argue the non-rule/non-law view of the Precepts.