How to be a Buddhist in Five simple steps

formermonkJohn

Many people have the idea that Buddhism is a complicated religion, requiring years of practise and monastic training, but this is not true, our Lord Buddha had very, very many lay followers, many of whom practised the 5 precepts or commandments and had only a limited understanding of the Four noble truths and the higher teachings requiring meditation.

Let me make it quite clear, as buddhists we need to get our priorities straight and the 5 precepts are perhaps the most important teaching we can practise, and without fastidiously practising the 5 precepts we are not going to progress much into the higher teachings as we haven't layed the groundwork for enlightenment, and the 5 precepts are the groundwork.

The 5 precepts; 1. No lying except in the rare instance we could prevent a higher crime like the taking of a life.

2. No stealing or dishonestly aquiring property

3. No killing, animal or human, strictly speaking vegetarianism, and not supporting wars like the conflict in Afghanistan

4. No adultery or sex outside a committed relationship and no sex at all for those taking monastic vows

5. No drugs or alcohol, or intoxicants, strictly speaking no drinking or taking drugs at all, and the more liberal interpretation no getting drunk or f'd up on drugs, limiting oneself strictly to two or three drinks and never ruining our sober state by overdoing it.

Will just following these simple 5 precepts give us enlightenment, probably not, but they may go a long way to giving us a basic level of happiness, the Buddha aimed to help all people not just the higher practitioners, If you are a beginner to Buddhism try following these precepts before you try the difficult task of sitting meditation,

Jesus in the Bible was almost in complete agreement with the Buddha, when asked which commandments were important to a good life he chose four that the Buddha picked, don't Lie, don't Steal, don't Kill, and don't commit Adultery, he added honour you're mother and father, a basic tenant of oriental culture, and love your neighbor as yourself, something I don't think the Buddha would have any arguement with, so you don't have to renounce Christianity to practise Buddhism, at their core the're very similar. Personally I believe that Jesus and The Buddha were the same incarnate being, however Jesus' teaching have been altered and changed by his followers, especially Paul, the Buddhas teachings are carefully preserved in almost their entirety, thats why I choose to follow the Buddha, but pay utmost respect to Jesus.:):):):):)

caz

Geshe Kelsang I have heard a few times at festivals praise the good qualities of Jesus as being a Bodhisattva.

DaltheJigsaw

Great:)
Thanks!

Joshua

This will be more or less off topic, and already mentioned on these forums, but perhaps you'll find the Jesus/Isa in India theory interesting.

That's not the best link, there's a lot of information around though, and good YouTube videos of course, it's some good fun.

DaltheJigsaw

Thanks Valois!

tariki

Personally I would never equate attempts at moral rectitude with religion as such. "If moral virtue were Christianity then Socrates was the Savior" as William Blake once said it. My own experience of "virtue" - and of attempts to match a particular set of precepts - is a growth of what could be called a pharisaism of the heart, a self righteousness that begins to see itself as distinct - even better than - others. Blake again........"mutual forgiveness of each vice opens the gates of paradise."

For me Buddhism is about "insight" and "wisdom"......wisdom defined as the mind/heart thirsting for emancipation, seeing direct into the heart of reality. My experience is that "virtue" is a by-product of such wisdom, rather than wisdom/insight being by-products of morality. And keeping a close and constant eye on our moral virtue is counter-productive to the experience of selflessness. Maybe a degree of indifference is required.....rather than preoccupation with precepts?

When a hideous man becomes a father
And a son is born to him
In the middle of the night
He trembles and lights a lamp
And runs to look in anquish
On that child's face
To see whom he resembles. (Chuang Tzu)

That said, I would not seek to argue strenuously.....:smilec: No harm in precepts. Please go ahead and keep them.

Cinorjer

former monk John wrote: »

Many people have the idea that Buddhism is a complicated religion, requiring years of practise and monastic training, but this is not true, our Lord Buddha had very, very many lay followers, many of whom practised the 5 precepts or commandments and had only a limited understanding of the Four noble truths and the higher teachings requiring meditation.

Let me make it quite clear, as buddhists we need to get our priorities straight and the 5 precepts are perhaps the most important teaching we can practise, and without fastidiously practising the 5 precepts we are not going to progress much into the higher teachings as we haven't layed the groundwork for enlightenment, and the 5 precepts are the groundwork.

The 5 precepts; 1. No lying except in the rare instance we could prevent a higher crime like the taking of a life.

2. No stealing or dishonestly aquiring property

3. No killing, animal or human, strictly speaking vegetarianism, and not supporting wars like the conflict in Afghanistan

4. No adultery or sex outside a committed relationship and no sex at all for those taking monastic vows

5. No drugs or alcohol, or intoxicants, strictly speaking no drinking or taking drugs at all, and the more liberal interpretation no getting drunk or f'd up on drugs, limiting oneself strictly to two or three drinks and never ruining our sober state by overdoing it.

Will just following these simple 5 precepts give us enlightenment, probably not, but they may go a long way to giving us a basic level of happiness, the Buddha aimed to help all people not just the higher practitioners, If you are a beginner to Buddhism try following these precepts before you try the difficult task of sitting meditation,

Jesus in the Bible was almost in complete agreement with the Buddha, when asked which commandments were important to a good life he chose four that the Buddha picked, don't Lie, don't Steal, don't Kill, and don't commit Adultery, he added honour you're mother and father, a basic tenant of oriental culture, and love your neighbor as yourself, something I don't think the Buddha would have any arguement with, so you don't have to renounce Christianity to practise Buddhism, at their core the're very similar. Personally I believe that Jesus and The Buddha were the same incarnate being, however Jesus' teaching have been altered and changed by his followers, especially Paul, the Buddhas teachings are carefully preserved in almost their entirety, thats why I choose to follow the Buddha, but pay utmost respect to Jesus.:):):):):)

John, the precepts are, given some tinkering and with a whole lot of exceptions to the rules, the social behavior that minimizes conflict with our neighbors, and can be found written into most world religions. In other words, the Precepts are all about a peaceful community rather than personal happiness. In fact, sila, what the precepts are supposed to cultivate, is accurately translated as harmony.

The problem with the Precepts in Buddhism is that any short list of rules for personal behavior must be so overly broad and generalized as to be useless as a focus for our Buddhist practice. We at least recognize this, so we call them guidelines but insist on treating them exactly like rules anyway. How many times to we have the same question about do Buddhists have to be vegetarian? After all, doesn't no killing mean you can't support the slaughter of livestock?

"No, the Precepts are guidelines, not rules. But..." And then there is a huge amount of weezling around in the discussion that ends with the unavoidable message that some Buddhists make the effort and some like their cheezeburgers too much to give them up. No matter what you say, the end result is that nonvegetarians are told that they are second rate Buddhists, that really serious Buddhists will make the sacrifice in the name of the suffering animals.

The Precepts are all good ideas for promoting harmony so people can practice Buddhism. It's hard to cultivate compassion when you're getting drunk because you were just told that your neighbor is boinking your girlfriend. Also, the behavior the Precepts say to avoid are common causes of suffering in yourself and others, but obeying the Precepts is not Buddhism. A person can strictly adhere to each and every Precept and still suffer terribly. In fact, I guarantee that without penetrating the Noble Truths, that person is going to suffer exactly because they have strict rules they insist on obeying to the exclusion of the well-being of themselves and the people around them. There are people who insist, for instance, that their cats must also eat a vegetarian diet.

The Precepts were invented for a lay population that was not expected to penetrate the Noble Truths or work toward enlightenment. That was the job of the monks, who didn't have Precepts. The monks were following the Middle Way, had vows and sometimes hundreds of rules and a regimented life to fit the rules. Lay people were given a few guidelines and were supposed to accumulate merit by supporting the monks and temple.

So if the Precepts aren't the hardrock of Buddhist practice, what is? My vote is for cultivating a compassionate mind and acting from compassion and not worrying about the Precents. I'm interested in your response.

Mr_Serenity

I think saying that you need to be a strict vegetarian to be Buddhist is rather controversial, and a bit biased. From what I heard the Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian and he eats meat. I have worked as a chef, and am a home cook and I know myself that meat tastes great.

So I feel its maybe too dogmatic to say a Buddhist must or should be vegetarian. I know it's a controversial thing, but that type of thing could scare people away. As a type of dogmatic rule that doesn't make sense. Strict vegetarianism is a big leap, and really is sort of a prideful. We kill live organisms and use dead animal parts every day. I don't see how eating meat would be more negative karma than not eating meat.

naturelover

tariki wrote: »

Personally I would never equate attempts at moral rectitude with religion as such. "If moral virtue were Christianity then Socrates was the Savior" as William Blake once said it. My own experience of "virtue" - and of attempts to match a particular set of precepts - is a growth of what could be called a pharisaism of the heart, a self righteousness that begins to see itself as distinct - even better than - others. Blake again........"mutual forgiveness of each vice opens the gates of paradise."

For me Buddhism is about "insight" and "wisdom"......wisdom defined as the mind/heart thirsting for emancipation, seeing direct into the heart of reality. My experience is that "virtue" is a by-product of such wisdom, rather than wisdom/insight being by-products of morality. And keeping a close and constant eye on our moral virtue is counter-productive to the experience of selflessness. Maybe a degree of indifference is required.....rather than preoccupation with precepts?

I agree.

sukhita

Cinorjer wrote: »

....... A person can strictly adhere to each and every Precept and still suffer terribly. In fact, I guarantee that without penetrating the Noble Truths, that person is going to suffer exactly because they have strict rules they insist on obeying to the exclusion of the well-being of themselves and the people around them..........

Agreed... the Four Noble Truths is the core of the practice.

The Buddha image sits in great dignity and calm, fully alert, with a look of wakefulness and kindness, not being caught up in the changing conditions around it. Likewise, we should practice to achieve this sense of peace and calm inspite of all the uncertainties, pain, and dissappointments that we face. For this, we need something more than just morality and virtue to experience. Even if we are not advanced in meditation to acquire insights into ultimate truths, studying conventional truths about the nature of phenomena, and deeply contemplating on this, does go quite a way in preparing us to shed some suffering, at least. IMHO

formermonkJohn

I am planning on doing a seperate post for the four noble truths, however some of you seem to have some misinformation about the precepts, they come straight from the Buddhas mouth, apply to all buddhist practitioners including the monks and are the first thing I was taught by Thai Lao monks when I first went to the temple, to say that rightful living as indicated by the precepts will not lead to happiness is folly, our Lord Buddha was thinking not only of our personal happiness but the greater good of the whole community when he indicated these precepts, those that think it alright to skip over the precepts and go straight to the higher teachings may be in for an unpleasant surprise, kind of like enrolling in a calculus class when you've never done algebra.

ps obviously eating meat causes more suffering for the animals than being a vegetarian, my religion is not based on "if the Dalai Lama says it OK its OK with me" in todays day and age there is no excuse for eating animals but our own selfish desire, thats my opinion

sincerely john

Cinorjer

You're obviously a man of strong convictions. And, there are many Buddhists who feel passionately, as you do. I was going to suggest perhaps using the unadorned Precepts in your article with the commentary about vegetarianism, but it's your words and you have to write what you believe.

robot

John-I don't mean to be argumentative. When you say there no excuse for eating meat, you must be talking about middle class or better urban living buddhists .On the coast where I live there are numerous Indian reserves. Many of them are isolated and only accessible by water or air. People have lived here for at least 6000 years. They have always lived on fish and game. Unemployment is very high in most of these villages. Since whites arrived and up until fairly recently, they survived by seal hunting then fishing and logging. Thats all gone now for the most part. Even in this day and age, without access to traditional foods, things would be a whole lot worse for these folks. I think most people recognize this. In fact the Canadian constitution guarantees them fishing and hunting rights. It is probably the same in the states. Granted they get welfare when they need it which is often. But it has probably caused more problems that it has solved. Whether someone is native or not, feeding kids on welfare does not leave much for choices. Traditionally these people have had the utmost respect for their environment as their long history here proves. In fact there is very little to show for thousands of years of habitation, except midden piles composed mainly of clam shells and fish bones, and the odd totem pole. And the people. What I want to know is this. In your opinion, is it only selfish desire that causes these people to hunt and fish for food? Where do they fit in in your view?-P

Jeffrey

Next.

minimax

Regarding the strict adherence to vegetarianism, didn't Devadatta, the jealous cousin of Buddha, try to cause a schism in the sangha by starting his own monastic following and implementing a much harsher set of rules, one of them to be completely vegetarian? (Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta) My point is that there needs to a balance, especially since a lot of people still struggle to maintain a complete vegetarian diet. To enforce all lay Buddhists to become vegetarians is a great way to alienate ppl by creating a "holier-than-thou" atmosphere, although for bhikkhus/bhikkhunis who have food prepared by volunteers, especially in urban areas, I don't see much reason to not adhere to vegetarianism (as for the case of HH Dalai Lama, refer to: http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/05/dalai_lama.html; I have also pasted it below:

RD: Your assistant says you are half vegetarian. How can one be “half vegetarian?”
Dalai Lama: [Laughs.] In the early 1960s, I became a vegetarian, and for almost two years I remained a strict vegetarian. But then I developed hepatitis, and I returned to my previous diet; for a while it would be vegetarian one day, nonvegetarian the next.
My kitchen is now totally vegetarian. But that doesn’t mean I am completely vegetarian, for when I visit places, occasionally I take nonvegetarian…that seems to help reduce the size of my stomach.

Cinorjer wrote: »

That was the job of the monks, who didn't have Precepts. The monks were following the Middle Way, had vows and sometimes hundreds of rules and a regimented life to fit the rules.

Just to clarify, the monastic vows/code of conduct definitely covered the 5 precepts in much more detail.

Joshua

tariki wrote: »

Personally I would never equate attempts at moral rectitude with religion as such. "If moral virtue were Christianity then Socrates was the Savior" as William Blake once said it. My own experience of "virtue" - and of attempts to match a particular set of precepts - is a growth of what could be called a pharisaism of the heart, a self righteousness that begins to see itself as distinct - even better than - others. Blake again........"mutual forgiveness of each vice opens the gates of paradise."

For me Buddhism is about "insight" and "wisdom"......wisdom defined as the mind/heart thirsting for emancipation, seeing direct into the heart of reality. My experience is that "virtue" is a by-product of such wisdom, rather than wisdom/insight being by-products of morality. And keeping a close and constant eye on our moral virtue is counter-productive to the experience of selflessness. Maybe a degree of indifference is required.....rather than preoccupation with precepts?

When a hideous man becomes a father
And a son is born to him
In the middle of the night
He trembles and lights a lamp
And runs to look in anquish
On that child's face
To see whom he resembles. (Chuang Tzu)

That said, I would not seek to argue strenuously.....:smilec: No harm in precepts. Please go ahead and keep them.

Perfect.
Genius.

In fact the comprehension of the four Noble Truths is the whole of Buddhism. I believe if dukkha is understood truly then it's origination will certainly be abandoned and absolute wisdom follows because the cessation has been realised and developed. Precepts are simply a convention to replace a lack of absolute wisdom, a moral crutch to turn to for people like me who have until yet failed to absolutely internalise the three marks of existence.

The precepts are a middle-way between praying to a god to save you and you actually saving yourself.

Of course, the precepts to a certain point do function as a few twigs to the raft to cross the river of samsara, and it's nobody's position to say how far one ought to have traveled across this river, for because we all possess kammic debt. It's no one's position to have authority on what rite or ritual or precept functions better than another, for you who has not sinned may you cast the first stone. Otherwise, you all are bound to samsara--in the next life you may not have as much capacity as another in this life who has only the capacity to follow the precepts. The dharma is a precious gem in any form, the dharma is eternal and is found in all religions and all precepts based upon morality. Perception creates experienced reality, you cannot control your reality any more than another person, that is why neither is enlightened, therefore pass no judgement on what is best. That being said, it is still genius.

formermonkJohn

Either you respect the Buddha and what he taught or you don't; designing you're own religion by taking bits and pieces of what the Buddha said, the precepts are the core of the most basic teaching of the Buddha and apply to all the monks and nuns doubly so. By most reports the Buddha was a vegetarian, and wanted most of his followers to be likewise, so the Dalai Lama eats meat, he is not the Buddha, this is a forum for Buddhism not Dalai Lamaism,

What I said on the third precept is the strict conservative interpretation of No Killing is towards complete vegetarianism, of course there are more liberal interpretations allowing some meat eating, but overall becoming a Buddhist we are supposed to cause less suffering and killing of animals and a prime way we can do that is eat less or no meat,

Once again with No Intoxicants, the strict interpretation is no drugs or alcohol at all, the liberal one no using to the point of intoxication. My point is most of you are more attached to you intoxicants and meat than you are to the Buddha and what he really intended, It was wayward monks that demanded meat, not the Buddha, just because monks have been eating meat for thousands of years does not mean that is the ideal presented by the Lord Buddha.

Ask almost any Asian Buddhist and they'll tell you that vegetarianism is a good thing, obviously causes less suffereing, and throughout history some of the most enlightened Buddhist masters have practised complete vegetarianism, much more so than any Christians, to say that the Buddha wouldn't hope for us to be vegetarians and that the five precepts are insignificant and unimportant for being a Buddhist, well that's complete and utter rubbish

sincerely john

TheJourney

former monk John wrote: »

ps obviously eating meat causes more suffering for the animals than being a vegetarian

that's not obvious. do farmers allow insects and the like to eat and destroy their crops or do they have them killed?

formermonkJohn

you would compare the suffering of insects to a cow or pig being slaughtered, you meat eaters will stop at nothing to get you're fix of flesh!! Maybe you'd make a better muslim, they have a long tradition of slaughtering animals.

sincerely john

TheJourney

Care to reference where the buddha says that some animals are better than others? And telling me I should be a muslim...really...glad we can all respect eachothers opinions on here.:rolleyes:

robot

Are you saying that the comparison is a red herring? Or are you suggesting that a cow or a pig suffers more than an insect?

Artemis

former monk John wrote: »

you would compare the suffering of insects to a cow or pig being slaughtered, you meat eaters will stop at nothing to get you're fix of flesh!!

This is unfair and highly judgmental..arguably strawmanning too.

Vegetarianism and Buddhism have been discussed at great length in these threads, which I encourage you to check out:

http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7468
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5926
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4474

The issue is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be. If nothing else, please be mindful that plenty (though not all) people here are both practicing Buddhists and meat-eaters, for various reasons (again, I recommend referring to the posted threads). Taking a hardline "you must do this or not do that or you are a bad Buddhist" will not make people fall in line with your demands; it will only alienate them.

TheFound

are you saying the path is simple? not complicated like people think?
buddhism is not complicated ?


ur a silly goose.

TheFound

The buddha was just an excellent swimmer.

formermonkJohn

What would you rather be reborn as, a cow, a pig or an insect? The Buddha spoke at length about higher and lower incarnations, he didnt speak very highly of ones prospects if born as an ant, even so I try to avoid killing insects in my house and always step over ant trails when I see them, if you're so concerned with insects try buying organic food, they don't use insecticides, I hate to be rude and opinionated but when it comes to vegetarianism, I am, and proudly so, try putting yourself in an innocent cows position before you have your next hamburger, ps are there any vegetarians left on this forum?

sincerely john

robot

Probably lots but you won't get much of an argument from them. What fun would that be?:)

formermonkJohn

so its ok to eat animals as long as you pay some one else to do the killing, let them suffer the bad karma, conversely if we take the Buddhas words literally its OK to hire someone to kill your enemies as long as you don't do the actual killing, that's what you're saying, see a problem here?

sincerely john

Jason

Artemis wrote: »

This is unfair and highly judgmental..arguably strawmanning too.

Vegetarianism and Buddhism have been discussed at great length in these threads, which I encourage you to check out:

http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7468
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5926
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4474

The issue is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be. If nothing else, please be mindful that plenty (though not all) people here are both practicing Buddhists and meat-eaters, for various reasons (again, I recommend referring to the posted threads). Taking a hardline "you must do this or not do that or you are a bad Buddhist" will not make people fall in line with your demands; it will only alienate them.

Don't forget this one.

robot

I am a commercial fisherman. I am the guy thats hired to do the killing. I understand that that rules out being a Buddhist. My experience tells me that it does not mean that I cannot meditate and gain insight. And benefit from the Buddha's teachings. Or study the Middle Way. And I understand that a being that calls himself me may suffer karmic repercussions for my actions. Also, I have to acknowledge that I would not be here today if I had not traveled the path that I took to get here. I am not dissatisfied.-P

sukhita

In a perfect world we can all adhere to a "commandment" not to kill. We are not living in such a perfect world, we are living in samsara where life feeds on life - like it or not.

We train ourselves the best we can to avoid suffering to other beings. There's no one in this world who is not linked in some way or other to the killing of other beings. Ploughing the fields to grow vegetation kills beings - millions of beings - perhaps more than all the lifestock killed for food. That doesn't mean we should stop eating vegetables... does it? Protecting crops from pests kills insects, even on organic farms they use methods other than insecticides to get rid of pests. More often, organic farming is more for health of humans than compassion. Are (vegetable/grain) farmers, who kill with full knowledge, also excluded from being Buddhists? Gets sooo complicated.....

There are no easy answers here. Therefore, out of compassion, each one of us should decide for ourselves how we can contribute to reducing the suffering of beings. Like choosing "free-range" meat products if we can afford it. There's no one size fits all here. Much depends on the circumstances of the people.

Being vegetarians and vegans is praiseworthy, but only if one dosen't adopt a "holier than thou" attitude.

tariki

Maybe the various opinions expressed regarding keeping precepts betray the monastic origins of Buddhism? Perhaps "western" Buddhism will eventually work out its own priorities. Meanwhile, I go my own "pure land" way, egalitarian to a fault.......:)

Joshua

former monk John wrote: »

What would you rather be reborn as, a cow, a pig or an insect? The Buddha spoke at length about higher and lower incarnations, he didnt speak very highly of ones prospects if born as an ant, even so I try to avoid killing insects in my house and always step over ant trails when I see them, if you're so concerned with insects try buying organic food, they don't use insecticides, I hate to be rude and opinionated but when it comes to vegetarianism, I am, and proudly so, try putting yourself in an innocent cows position before you have your next hamburger, ps are there any vegetarians left on this forum?

sincerely john

Do the thoughts of anger you have subtracted from your veggie merit translate to less negative kamma than those who happily and non-judgmentally eat meat?

Mr_Serenity

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances. Be like an analyst buying gold, who cuts,burns and critically examines his product for authenticity. Only accept what passes the test by proving useful and beneficial in your life."
- The Buddha

I feel that quote is the essence of Buddhism. If you take in everything as literally without your own take on it, then it turns into a blind faith and dogma. That is not wise Buddhism. Several sanctions of Buddhism are vegetarian and several sanctions eat meat. Many monks also eat meat as a "humility" ritual. Because when you strive to be purely vegetarian that is a form of pride and arrogance. Because many insects do die to make your vegetarian food.

Who gets more bad karma, the farmer who kills 5,000 insects, using machines to gather crops, or the poor father of 5 who catches 3 fish on his own to feed his family? It is just a natural part of the food chain. We have been hunting animals for food our entire existence. When someone starts to say "you must be vegetarian to be Buddhist" that is dogma that doesn't make sense to me.

I think the Buddha would understand what I mean. But again, I do not take in Buddhism for the ancient scriptures and what is written in ancient books. I learn Buddhism from the modern teachers that teach today in my time. They teach it and adapt the dharma by being mindful of what is useful in today's society. And if they say something that makes no sense to me, I don't take it literally. It is good to think for yourself, and make the best choices for yourself.

Cinorjer

Within 500 years after the Buddha's death, the Sangha had split in different schools, some bitterly opposed to each other. There have been about a half dozen councils called over the centuries, where the monk scholars of the various schools did nothing but argue about matters of doctrine and relevance of various sutras. This being the Buddhism for Beginners forum, I think the import thing any beginner should learn from our debates is that Buddhists can disagree and still consider each other Buddhists.

There is a story in my own tradition, where a student pointed out to Zen Master Seung Sahn that according to sutras, a previous Master had believed something entirely different from what Master Seung had said about a matter of the Dharma. Did that mean the dead Master's understanding of the Dharma was incomplete? Was he wrong?

No, Master Seung replied, the old Master was not wrong, and neither am I. That was his understanding, and this is mine, that's all.

There are all sorts of elements that go into what a Buddhist considers proper and effective practice, of putting the Dharma into action in our own lives. Such attitudes as how literally to take the sacred scriptures, how to translate rules meant for monks to a lay person, how inclusive can Buddhism be without losing the heart of what it means to be Buddhist, all of that goes into our religious beliefs. Especially, our experiences with our various Teachers and temples, for good or bad, will shape our practice.

And for beginners, it can look like we're engaged in fighting. Dharma debates can get passionate, sometimes.

thickpaper

former monk John wrote: »

Let me make it quite clear, as buddhists we need to get our priorities straight and the 5 precepts are perhaps the most important teaching we can practise, and without fastidiously practising the 5 precepts we are not going to progress much into the higher teachings

My position on this is very different. The five precepts as they alone are pretty meaningless within a Dharmic context. They come over as nothing more than typical moral instructions.

I think they are great instructions and have been diligently trying to practice them for the best part of my adult life.

But the middle path is not just a moral path, it has spiritual/mental components as well as philosophical and meditative components and they all are interconnected, both causally and explanatory.

Also, I think it is misleading to suggest that some parts of the path are "higher", I don't get this at all from the texts or (more importantly for me) from my striving to understand Dharma in my life.

Will just following these simple 5 precepts give us enlightenment, probably not,

I think absolutely not. Right View, Mindfulness, Concentration....

but they may go a long way to giving us a basic level of happiness

Sure, but so do precepts or truisms such as:

"Don't worry, be happy" - Bobby Mc Ferrin
"The best things in life are not things" - Art Buchwald
"Be excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." Ghandi
"Know thyself" - Socrates et al.

If you are a beginner to Buddhism try following these precepts before you try the difficult task of sitting meditation,

Surely, but surely, The Noble Truths are where all Buddhists should start... and remain?

so you don't have to renounce Christianity to practise Buddhism

I think what you must mean is the practice of "buddhist Morality" rather than Dharma.

however Jesus' teaching have been altered and changed by his followers, especially Paul, the Buddhas teachings are carefully preserved in almost their entirety

There is no evidence to suggest that Buddha's teachings haven't been changed just as much as those of Jesus, if not more so.

I think one important difference is that the Buddha didn't need to have existed for Dharma to be true, whereas Christianity needs Jesus to be true.

namaste

tariki

so you don't have to renounce Christianity to practise Buddhism

Maybe, if the "practice" of a religion is to keep to a moral code. Personally, I have found that more often than not the Christian Faith becomes an "I-thou" relationship, between the believer and his/her God - and that Christianity in many ways presupposes such. The Dharma seems to call for a "strategy of perception" born of anatta, no-self......a relationship - if it can be called that - between the conventional self and selflessness/emptiness.

One of my many mentors, the Theravada Elder Nyanaponika Thera spoke of how the Bible begins with the words "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth" while the Dhammapada begins with "Mind precedes all things....." Nyanaponika Thera claims that the first leads far away into an imaginary Beyond, while the latter leads straight home, into man's very heart. My own experience - my very own and that of others I have had dialogue with via various forums - suggest that the difference is not so clear cut, and depends very much on where someone is within a faith rather than what faith they are in. Nevertheless, there is certainly a "flavour" to each, an ambience.

Another mentor, Thomas Merton, wrote - in a letter to Aldous Huxley concerning transcendental experience induced by drugs - that any true spirituality/mysticism necessarily implies "the contact of two liberties", the freedom of the divine and the freedom of the devotee. Yet later Merton explored Buddhist meditation and wrote of how an "I-thou" discipleship must - to reach fruition - evolve into a true sense of selflessness.....involving the paradox that as soon as there is someone there to have such an experience, the experience is falsified and indeed becomes impossible. (From "Zen and the Birds of Appetite")

Obviously the issue is complex and maybe no words can do justice to the uniqueness of each individual, and the actual existential experience of each. Also, each faith has "many mansions" - often I see that there is more correspondance of experience between people of different faiths than their is between those who claim to follow the same.

Anyway, myself, I seek the best of both worlds in the Pure Land way, though some would no doubt argue that it is the worst of both!

Joshua

On hindsight I'd say the five precepts are simply a preliminary raft to facilitate the comprehension of true wisdom, a wisdom not to be expressed verbally, a wisdom not attached to precepts. Such wisdom requires a certain degree of penetrating intellect, not much, but much more than many possess. Therefore it is a necessary feature on any sound moral philosophy to consider the limitations of all.

Which precepts are necessary, however, is another debate, though one of little importance as long as those precepts culminate in something defining selflessness.

As for me, I think this text is an amazing read and if it could be translated into something easier to grasp for the sorts of laypeople who require a difficult five precepts for a lifetime, I think that ought to be an integral element to my dharma. A dharma that accomplishes selflessness through any means, not just five.

CPaul

former monk John wrote: »

Either you respect the Buddha and what he taught or you don't; designing you're own religion by taking bits and pieces of what the Buddha said, the precepts are the core of the most basic teaching of the Buddha and apply to all the monks and nuns doubly so. By most reports the Buddha was a vegetarian, and wanted most of his followers to be likewise, so the Dalai Lama eats meat, he is not the Buddha, this is a forum for Buddhism not Dalai Lamaism,

What I said on the third precept is the strict conservative interpretation of No Killing is towards complete vegetarianism, of course there are more liberal interpretations allowing some meat eating, but overall becoming a Buddhist we are supposed to cause less suffering and killing of animals and a prime way we can do that is eat less or no meat,

Once again with No Intoxicants, the strict interpretation is no drugs or alcohol at all, the liberal one no using to the point of intoxication. My point is most of you are more attached to you intoxicants and meat than you are to the Buddha and what he really intended, It was wayward monks that demanded meat, not the Buddha, just because monks have been eating meat for thousands of years does not mean that is the ideal presented by the Lord Buddha.

Ask almost any Asian Buddhist and they'll tell you that vegetarianism is a good thing, obviously causes less suffereing, and throughout history some of the most enlightened Buddhist masters have practised complete vegetarianism, much more so than any Christians, to say that the Buddha wouldn't hope for us to be vegetarians and that the five precepts are insignificant and unimportant for being a Buddhist, well that's complete and utter rubbish

sincerely john

I'd like to know where you were a monk at, and what school it is.

Saying that being strictly vegetarian somehow creates less suffering than being strictly carnivorous is just another game you create. so is putting the Buddha on some kind of pedestal. "I'M BETTER THAN YOU! I CREATE LESS SUFFERING FOR PEOPLE! AND I FOLLOW THE BUDDHA MORE STRICT THAN YOU DO!"

Sorry man, but that's simply not how things work. You can follow none of the precepts and still be fully enlightened, you can follow all and be completely deluded.

Eating meat causes suffering. Not eating meat causes suffering. one isn't better than the other.

thickpaper

Hi Paul

I agree with you apart from about this:

CPaul wrote: »

You can follow none of the precepts and still be fully enlightened

The precepts are not "moral shoulds" but rather Karmic Facts. For example:

You cant be enlightened if your a drunkard stoner, not because being that is bad, but because the negative causation of those actions will negitavise your mindfullness and mental states.


You can't be enlightened if you are dishonest, not because it is a universal truth that one should not lie, but rather because the negative fruits of dishonesty (internally and externally) will propagate further dukka and defilements in your life and the lives of those around you.


There are no moral truths in Buddhism, only karmic facts which are testable, demonstrable, experienced and refutable (though as yet they seem to have never been refuted, quite the contrary, they become more and more supported by modern thinking)

I agree with you very much that you can follow the precepts 100% and still be a deluded doofus, but I think you would still be happier than were you exactly the same person but not following them at all.

All effects arise from causes

namaste







Eating meat causes suffering. Not eating meat causes suffering. one isn't better than the other.[/QUOTE]

CPaul

what I meant by "you can be fully enlightened and not follow any of the precepts," is that you can do things that are the complete opposite of the precepts if you are doing so as a way of skillful means. I.E. a master drinks alcohol, eats meat, and bangs a prostitute to challenge a student who dogmatically adheres to the precepts as "the way." obviously the actions would bear consequences, but the reason for the actions would be sound.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

I think being a Buddhist comes with 4 simple understandings. We call these the Dharma Seals.

1. All compounded things are impermanent.(anicca)
2. All stained emotions lead to suffering(dukkha)
3. All phenomena is empty(anatta)
4. Nirvana is peace(nirvana)

That is what makes a Buddhist a Buddhist no matter what tradition you choose to be.

sukhita

The_Fruit_Punch_Wizard wrote: »

I think being a Buddhist comes with 4 simple understandings. We call these the Dharma Seals.

1. All compounded things are impermanent.(anicca)
2. All stained emotions lead to suffering(dukkha)
3. All phenomena is empty(anatta)
4. Nirvana is peace(nirvana)

That is what makes a Buddhist a Buddhist no matter what tradition you choose to be.

I fully agree that these are indeed very profound Buddhist 'understandings' and that they would make one a Buddhist despite traditions. But I do feel that they are not "simple" understandings, especially in this beginners forum. For example, when a beginner reads "All compounded things are impermanent", a he/she may ask: "What about things that are not compounded?" Again, "All phenomena is empty" - "Empty of what?"

I would say an excellent posting, nonetheless, just leaving out the word "simple". Yes... I'm nit-picking... sorry

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

sukhita wrote: »

I would say an excellent posting, nonetheless, just leaving out the word "simple". Yes... I'm nit-picking... sorry

I like nit picking! It helps me become aware of my words. You have no idea how much I nit pick for the very same reason. Words and choices reveal to a person what they think, and my choosing simple reveals that I believe this understanding can be universally understood once a person decides to contemplate them.

sukhita

Ok, it's like looking at something from different angles...

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Works for me!

Barra

I don't know what John's tradition is, but I'm guessing that it is not Zen. Zen is where I sit (literally) and I remember being confused by my teacher's insistence that all we really need to do is sit (meditate). Now I understand where that comes from, as I've gained a lot from my sitting practice. But I've supplemented it by focusing on the Four Noble Truths and the Precepts. I've learned that, like a lot of ancient teachings, there are different translations of them, and this actually helps me to work with them. I "work" with the precepts in the same way that some people "work" with koans. I don't assume that they are a literal "must do" list, but important guideposts for us to work with and try to apply. I was in a situation once where I had an option of taking something without permission and and was trying to figure out what was the "right" thing to do. One translation of the "Do not steal" precept is "Take only that which is freely given" I found that mulling over these words helped me to decide what to do in that situation.

For me, Buddhism is a constant opportunity for mulling over - or refining - how we choose to be in the world, and the Precepts are a great tool for helping us to do this.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

I don't want to say the "C" word, but I have a feeling that he is a former Christian turned Buddhist Gnostic. Calling one's self "Gautama's Servant" should be hint enough. Buddha didn't teach the Sangha to serve him. The Buddha raised the Sangha from the mud of their own delusion. He taught them not to serve, but taught them how to see the marks of existence. Precepts are not commandments they are vows one upholds to themselves. A person who understands the Dharma seals is a Buddhist. Everything else is a preference or a tradition. There are also different understandings of the precepts.

IronRabbit

ps obviously eating meat causes more suffering for the animals than being a vegetarian, my religion is not based on "if the Dalai Lama says it OK its OK with me" in todays day and age there is no excuse for eating animals but our own selfish desire, thats my opinion

sincerely john[/quote]

John, opinions are like a--holes. everyone has one and they all stink.

Disparaging remarks about other religions, temporal spiritual leaders and/or those you classify as meat-eaters slathering for their next serving of flesh are about as misguided and discompassionate as they can be. No wonder you are a former monk! If we are instructed to be skeptical of even the Buddha's teachings what must we think of one who insists on being ultimately correct about what others should do - or eat? In addition to strict adherence to the five precepts perhaps you should consider bodhicitta too and have as much compassion for your sangha (all of us) as you claim to have for the cows and pigs you don't even know - or talk to!

Sorry if I sound like one - but I'm an a--hole too. Just ask my wife!

formermonkJohn

comments like this remind me of what scum there are that call themselves buddhists, same as with christians, ive practised buddhism for 20 yrs, written two books on religion from the buddhas perspective, lived at temples for about 2 years, been a temple boy and monk in the theravada tradition, ( a temporary monkhood not a lifetime commitment like mahayana tradition) and i come to this forum to educate and inform beginners about the basics of buddhism, I poor my heart out about the precepts in the first post, and all you unenlightened people can do is bitch about you want to eat meat, and the precepts aren't important, acoording to any monk ive talked to the buddha and the holiest monks were/are vegetarians, end of story, dont change the facts to fit your stupid desires, im sorry but when someone calls me an ahole for what i have posted here, i bite im a tiger

Oshima

Hey, first post. I'm not a Buddhist, if anything, I'm an existentialist, but I've always found Buddhism to be a illuminating and genuine philosophy, that is, the four noble truths are not, as I see them, ideas about how to live so much as irreducible facts of living in a corporeal form. That being said, strict adherence to the precepts mentioned in the op. especially for the sake of being able to call oneself a true Buddhist, seems sort of stepping out of the ultimate aim of core Buddhist philosophy as I understand it. I mean, even revering the Buddha as some sort of deity seems illusory to me. Ultimately, Buddha seemed like a wise man who lived and died, and who had some really earth shattering truths to lay down for people, and ideas about enlightenment or nirvana are ultimately metaphors for a state when everything false has been deconstructed. Isn't there a famous Zen proverb that say's "If you see Buddha on the road to enlightenment, kill him".I ask the more experienced and devout Buddhists posting here, is not one of the ultimate aims of Buddhism to let Buddha go, including attachment to what was written about what he said?

formermonkJohn

youre not a buddhist, you dont follow the precepts, however buddhism is just like christianity, its a great big religion with 1 billion+followers, tons of schools run by good people and yes bad even very bad people, jim jones was a christian, chairman mao was probably raised a buddhist, a lot of the khmer rouge were buddhist, calling yourself a buddhist or "following" buddhism can mean a lot of totally different things not all good, practising meditation does not make you a good person or a buddhist, lots of christian and total non believers meditate, you can meditate on good things or you can meditate on bad things or just plain selfish things, meditation is a tool like a car, not the centre of the buddhist religion, the buddha taught good living for the lay people just like jesus, there is really no difference in their basic teachings, if you abhor jesus, big religion and christianity then youre really going to hate buddhism cause it forces you to stop lieing and taking advantage of people and makes you feel like crap when you arent helping less fortunate people,tries to get you to be a vegetarian and wont let you smoke pot or drink, a lot of westerners who have rejected god jesus and everything to do with them have flocked to buddhism because they think its liberal, I wish a lot of them would go back to church and leave us Buddhists here alone, The precepts are the first steps if your a buddhiost and youre not following the precepts anything you say about this religion is suspect, this forum is practically run by non beleivers who refuse to beleive half the things the buddha said, dont listen to them. end of story.