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.
A question about the five precepts.
A question about the five precepts.
I have met people that say that there are no should and should nots in Buddhism but I have also seen Buddhists use the word should, the word unacceptable and other suchlike words and I have opposed things like war and greed.
So did the Buddha not say we should or should not do anything? Did he say that we would be wise to follow the 5 precepts but he did not say that we should? Someone said Buddha said Buddha said we would be wise to but never said that we should.
From my limited knowledge of the translated Buddhist texts I see words like ignoble, base and unwholesome and I thought such words implied that something was bad and when people use these words I thought it implied that they think you should do not what they described as such way. Maybe I understand these words wrong but thats my understanding of them, although I do not think they have exactly the same meaning.
I have also noticed that the 8fold path is sometimes translated as wise rather than right.
Is there really no should and should nots in Buddhism or this interpretation of Buddhism?
I have met people that say that there are no should and should nots in Buddhism but I have also seen Buddhists use the word should, the word unacceptable and other suchlike words and I have opposed things like war and greed.
So did the Buddha not say we should or should not do anything? Did he say that we would be wise to follow the 5 precepts but he did not say that we should? Someone said Buddha said Buddha said we would be wise to but never said that we should.
From my limited knowledge of the translated Buddhist texts I see words like ignoble, base and unwholesome and I thought such words implied that something was bad and when people use these words I thought it implied that they think you should do not what they described as such way. Maybe I understand these words wrong but thats my understanding of them, although I do not think they have exactly the same meaning.
I have also noticed that the 8fold path is sometimes translated as wise rather than right.
Is there really no should and should nots in Buddhism or this interpretation of Buddhism?
0
Comments
(And if we put forth right effort, we will understand later, it's not just something to say.)
In Buddhism we say 'skillful/wholesome' and 'unskillful/unwholesome' rather than good or bad. It's because everything must be taken in respect to the goal. The goal of Buddhism is awakening of the mind and liberation from suffering/frustration/stress. Some people follow Buddhism as just a moral teaching to lead good lives, and that's okay.....but it's not the fullness of the Buddha's teaching.
Namaste
In Buddhism, it all starts with taking refuge, which is an individual choice & commitment.
So depending on how we have taken refuge, they many be "shoulds" and "should nots" but still, they are training rules.
:smilec:
Saying there is no should or should not implies there is no best thing to do.
It seems like people are playing with words.
I don't think it is a matter of how it is written but how you approach it, as everything in life. Some people think they should loose 20 pounds (as in "Oh, god...Do I really have to?"), some people want to loose 20 pounds (as in "Everyday I feel lighter, more beautiful and this makes me feel good").
Some people think they should follow the precepts ("If I don't do this my life will suck and I will burn in hell"), some people think they are training rules. Training has a positive connotation, right? As if you are approaching a goal, but I guess what really says if it is a should is how we relate to the things we are supposed to do and not the name tag we put on our activities, that is just secondary.
What is important is that the buddhist guidelines (or any guideline or goal, really), whether you call them rules or not, have a place in the project of who you want to become or what kind of life you want to have, and that they have meaning inside the context that is your life, in a spontaneous way, and also that you find ways to keep motivated in the long run.
if you kill a human being you will have much bad karma.
bad karma in the form of terrible suffering in this life (remorses, guilt, from them come anxiety, depression, panic attacks, from them can come alcoholism etc...)
uless you block theese emotions out, in which case they will create more subtle suffering, a constant uneasiness, affect your thought patterns which would create much suffering in themselves, perversions which will create much suffering as well...
So yes, Buddha said don't kill, which mean don't war, for this reason.
I'm sure from this example you get the other precepts as well.
simple isn't? hope this help.
I think this has to do with what is actually succesful in transforming ourselves. Quite often one part of us in a very heavy handed way tells us that we should be disciplined and stop a certain behaviour. It labels the other side evil in the attempt to accomplish this in a very miserly way that actually chokes the life out of the whole thing.
The other side which also may want to avoid the behavior but in a kind tender way rather than a heavy handed mean way. That side feels tremendous anger for being restrained and anger it itself for being so miserable and so forth.
The anger escalates and the heavy concretized thinking. But the behaviour does not change. We may even ventilate the anger on others and certainly on ourselves.
For that reason there exists teachings to counteract this poor state of affairs. So in some quarters you might see a teaching to ease up and be gentle and compassionate. Not such a rigid thinking.
But karma you see you always pay. Always. So whenever you do something wrong you will pay. But the basis of respecting karma is also wisdom and compassion (generosity, ethics of cause and effect, forbearance, joyous effort, one pointed virtuous concentration, prajna or wisdom to ease up) rather than a heavy handed 'discipline' and condemnation of yourself.
Ok, let's play with words.
"Should" implies there is an onus, an obligation. Something that is expected of us, (even if it's from ourselves....) something that we would need to do, because it's recommended to us that it would be a correct option.
Fine. here comes the 'play'....
Change the 'should' into a 'could'.
Instead of telling yourself "I should" do something, tell yourself "I COULD" do something.
'Could', turns it into an option. 'Could', turns it into a choice. 'Could' lets you evaluate and appraise the deed, and make your own decision.
It permits you to add an alternative.
"I should write to my aunt...." (guilt trip here....?)
"I COULD write to my aunt....but you know what? I'll send her some flowers instead - OR - but you know what? I'd rather go out playing football with my friends." Choice, option and discernment.
THEN - evaluate whether your decision is wise or not.
The practice of mindfulness, the cultivation of wisdom and compassion, and life experience, can inform what you should do, which is even more important.
Namaste
I see the word should here.
In a different translation of this he commands them to abadon things: " Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. "
The whole essence is to have a light touch. Can't you see the hypocracy of saying you shouldn't say should.
Its a fist opening not closing. And its not holding anything just space and compassion blossoming as it relaxes.
I myself think of things like karma and "what is skillful" as "contributing to the positive momentum of the continuum of consciousness". Therefore, if it contributes to positive momentum, it is wise, skillful, positive, and so forth, and I "should" do that.
But ultimately the decision lies with me. I decide what I "should" do. I have lots of good advice from the Buddhist tradition and various other traditions, but ultimately I decide and I bring "bad momentum" on myself if I decide unskillfully.
And I think Buddha's advise is right in that if I don't do it bad things are more likely to happen.
I have experienced Buddhists disappove of the word should which sort of suggests that they think I should not use the word. But if you look clearly at the translation the Buddha uses the word should.
Yes the people think there should be no should and should not are sort of contradicting themselves.
To a relative extent, both of these things are true. In my opinion.
Try it.
Are you commanding me?
By the way do you think the 8fold path is better translated as wise rather than right?
Either way, it's up to us to practice Wisdom, and get it right.
As far as the precepts go, I have a feeling that what Javelin said is right on. About them being rules similar to when parents set rules to protect their children. I think that, were we all to become enlightened right in this moment, we wouldn't need precepts. We'd just naturally follow them. I think they are good way to get us thinking about things. Like for me, when I began to think, "well I shouldn't kill these insects because I'm not supposed to kill anything..." it really helped to open me up to their prediciment. A black ant is a creature too, and it may not seem like a big deal to squash it, but it's a big deal to the ant. That helps generate more compassion and live more in the moment. Same thing with the other precepts, really. If you ask, "well, why shouldn't I do that!" you may find your answer, which is, I would imagine, ultimately the goal.
Good post, Cristina.
The sutras are one part of the triple basket (so called) along with the vinaya and the abhidharma...
The point of the vinaya is to avoid doing harm (or its strong suit)
sutras to get inspiration to do good
abhidharma to see reality with wisdom
Thats how I heard it anyway once upon a time...
You can try AN 4.99 and AN 8.39 for starters.