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.
We all have spiritual liberty, and can choose to follow the "rules" prescribed by our respective traditions or not. If we choose to follow we don't just pick and choose things we like, make us comfortable, or interpret them to fit our life as if walking through a cafeteria buffet. They were established by the ones who have gone before for our benefit, and we would should embrace them, learn more about them, and use them as reproof for our lives. They are the ground for enlightenment or illumination, and that is our true purpose in life.
I used to have a problem with the term "rule" as if it meant I was giving up my personal freedom, but have found out quite the contrary. I'm freer now following the rules than I had ever been before. I discovered that I was actually a slave to the things that I thought were representative of my personal freedom.
I figure the "rules" serve a purpose. They're not just arbitrary and they're not there to make us miserable, but the opposite You do those things and you become happier.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
That's the nice thing about them NOT being "Rules". You can choose to either abide by them - or not. But invariably we think, "Oh suck it, I'm gonna go my own way... I'm sure I'll be fine"... and then we find we're not.... and then the next time we think "You know what? I'm going to give it a go, and see how I get on..." and we get on really well. Experience is the key here. And sometimes, like a kid told the fire is hot, we still have to touch it, and go 'ouch' before realising for ourselves that the fire is hot...
I don't think of them as rules so much as guidelines. Rules suggests there some kind of punishment for not doing them, whereas they're only designed to help live a mindful life.
Yes, I think we are too attached to words and our defintions of them.
We can throw out the word punishment and perhaps use the word benefit for following them instead. However, the opposite of a benefit is a loss. The bottom line is that afflictive emotions/passions and our negative habits/sins prevents true happiness.
We fall down often while following the "rules", but the important thing is not to give up and the fruits will be progressively realized or revealed.
To me the issue with words here on this forum, and the poster who uses a formal definition of something and thinks "that's it", point proven. As if a dictionary definition were the be all and end all. Language is flexible, and sometimes dictionary definitions help our understanding, but language is not static.
I like Cracked's take on posting dictionary definitions during debate -
"It saves time when someone opens their argument by copy-pasting a dictionary. You immediately know they 1) think length counts over quality (which is why they bought that penis pump), 2) are incapable of stating their own thoughts and 3) are stupid."
(Not calling anyone stupid, I just think their way of presenting it is funny)
I figure the "rules" serve a purpose. They're not just arbitrary and they're not there to make us miserable, but the opposite You do those things and you become happier.
I first become aware of this aspect of rules, guidelines etc. when I was younger and did not follow one rule in regard to relationships which is standard in every ethical code that I can think of ( I did this knowing that many people do act in this way despite the the moral code. I was thinking that I could handle it, that it didn't have to apply in my situation as my intentions were not to hurt or harm anyone and I was looking to get my needs met and not hurt anyone ). Through experience I found out there is a very good purpose for the rule and whilst it was a painful experience in many ways it has helped me accept the Buddhist precepts without having to experience each first hand through testing the consequences of not following them.
Oh man, I forgot about this for a while and I come back and there's an overwhelming amount of information from you guys, which is fantastic and troubling. My issue isn't quite resolved and yet I have all of these different ways of looking at things. The problem is they can conflict in some cases and confuse me more. As for the post above me by @andyrobyn , something tells me I misunderstand the meaning. I feel like quite the fool for asking, but could someone break it down for me?
That's the nice thing about them NOT being "Rules". You can choose to either abide by them - or not. But invariably we think, "Oh suck it, I'm gonna go my own way... I'm sure I'll be fine"... and then we find we're not.... and then the next time we think "You know what? I'm going to give it a go, and see how I get on..." and we get on really well. Experience is the key here. And sometimes, like a kid told the fire is hot, we still have to touch it, and go 'ouch' before realising for ourselves that the fire is hot...
I think this post earlier in the discussion explains the role of the precepts/rules/guidelines ( or whatever other term we use ) in our practice/lives.
For sure we may often not want to or see the good purpose of the guidelines and then this is a chance to work with that - to go with that feeling, not hang on so tightly to ourselves that we have to go after what we want rather than what is recommended, a chance to move away from the narrow vision of what we want to the wider view. I hope that makes sense.
Just as a matter of interest, I attended a academic meeting last week where a psychiatrist I work with talked on the long term effects of marijuana use - he had SPECT scans and other radiological evidence to illustrate his points. I work in older persons mental health and the use of marijuana long term is now becoming increasingly evident in our client group. I have seen in my work how marijuana is not a harmless drug.
See, you're used to thinking of religion as a set of rules and a creed. You follow the rules because God tells you to and if you don't, God will punish you. You swear to a set of beliefs and you're on God's side. So a question, "Why do I have to obey this rule?" can only be answered by "Because it's a sin and God said don't do it."
Buddhism has precepts. Guidelines for avoiding suffering in your life and causing suffering in others. These are warning signs saying, "It's dangerous if you go down this path." If you ignore the sign and stick your toe over the line, probably nothing will happen. But, take a look at all the people who have messed up their lives drinking or doing drugs, for instance. Every single one of them thought, "I can handle this. I'm cool. I won't be like those other idiots." So maybe nothing bad happens, maybe only a little suffering that causes you to reconsider, or maybe you crash and burn. The precept is warning you, be careful and better to avoid this path.
It's hard to wrap you mind around the concept of a religion without a set of sins that define if you're one of the flock. In our case, if you're a Buddhist who smokes week and ends up busted and sitting in jail for possession, then you're a Buddhist sitting in jail who had to learn the hard way. As a Buddhist, you can't blame society for stupid drug laws that make marijuana a crime, or the cop that could have ignored the smell of pot in the car, etc. You have to blame yourself because the precepts told you intoxicants lead to suffering.
You have to blame yourself because the precepts told you intoxicants lead to suffering.
Why blame anyone?
You know, when we try to accept blame, we can't find anyone to accept it. So it does no good.
If we realised there was no blame to accept, we wouldn't struggle to put it onto self or others, thinking this imaginary quantity has to go somewhere.
Blaming others is the act of shifting blame to where it doesn't belong, but so is blaming self.
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
Oh please.... let's not be precious.
Sometimes, we have to step up to the plate, and accept blame, where blame is due.
The secret is to not keep flogging ourselves for it. So many people hate the word 'blame' but it helps to use it when you need to distinguish between it, and 'responsibility'.
For example: A couple are having difficulties in their marriage. One of the partners (spouse A) is tempted by outside factors and decides to stray, have an affair, and is unfaithful. Spouse B finds out, and this causes a further rift and division in the fabric of the marriage. Spouse A is absolutely, to blame, full-square 100%, for having cheated. But BOTH spouses are 100% responsible for their individual 50% roles within the marriage and need to look beyond the affair to see what the catalyst, the basic cause, for this mess, was, and is. Blame lies with spouse A. Responsibility lies with spouse A/B.
However, when Spouse A is genuinely contrite, sees "the error of their ways" and is willing to do whatever it takes to remedy the matter and repair the marriage, then Spouse B has got to refrain from beating spouse A over the head with the fact they cheated. And Spouse A does too.
I can see that maybe using the term blame denotes a moral judgement on someone failing to live up to their responsibility in a situation - of course, that is what happened in federica's example above ... spouse A definately could have made other choices as could the person who participated in cheating with them ( as I have often heard said no-one could cheat unless others were willing to cheat with them - ( of course, in some instances they may not know the person is married ).
Blame is a loaded word ... and it is good to look at our reactions to being blamed.
Also, I think there is a confusion between your interpersonal example, which I agree with, and whether we waste time blaming or not blaming ourselves or others in terms of our inner life, which is what I was talking about in response to Cinjorer's post.
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
.... Blame is a loaded word ... and it is good to look at our reactions to being blamed.
Yes it is... and people seem reluctant to use it, because it points fingers, and that is not politically correct.... It's rather like another word that is frequently bandied about as a replacement for another word, which also has 'negative connotations'... People refer to "Issues" which is far more sanitized that saying 'Problems'.
'he has issues with alcohol'... no, 'he has a PROBLEM with alcohol' - !
We've all become a little too tender in our approaches, and sometimes, you have to TILII.
It's one reason teachers in the UK have been advised to refrain from marking students' work in red. Apparently, it has a negative effect and makes them feel victimised. ( :wtf: ) Now, the colour green is 'de rigeur'.
Personally, I believe I must have been irreparably damaged by seeing "8/10, watch your punctuation" at the bottom of my French essay.....
hey al,,l one thing i found is that when i stopped smoking weed, and let me say i smoked allot evey day, but now it seems like my focus on the reality of the Buddha the dharma and the sangha are so much closer to me now,,, folks say that weed gives you a deeper meditation but its not real and it pulls you of the path to enlightenment and gives a false sence of peace so take it as you will, but find that my new meditation uninhibated by weed is my new high and when i stop my meditation im refreshed and awake so peace and joy to you all namaste Coz
Blame is exactly the word that should be used. People naturally go around blaming each other and society in general and other groups of people all the time. Blame is assigning responsibily, and sometimes the person or persons responsible for actions that harm others should be held responsible. Sometimes it's the only way to make changes. On the political stage, of course, the guilty like to say "you're playing the blame game" when they're caught. My answer as an old liberal is, "So? You are to blame. So you don't like it when you're on the receiving end. Live with it."
Of course people don't like to blame themselves. I've known my share of people who ended up in prison or on the wrong side of the law, and almost every one of them blamed someone, anyone but themselves. Even if they admitted to doing something that they knew was a crime.
And not every pile of crap that comes your way is your own fault. Every jobless person struggling on food stamps is not lazy, shiftless, etc. In fact, most of them are not. They are only jobless. So we look for people to blame when there is nobody at fault.
As Buddhists, we should strive to accept responsibility for our own actions and the karma those actions create. If not us, then who? We know it's not God's fault or Satan's work. It's us.
In the past, when I would stub my toe, I would think 'stupid, stupid', because I caused myself pain. But I didn't stop stubbing my toe until I stopped creating the conditions for clumsiness, which I was doing by blaming myself everytime I stepped out of an imaginary line, thus making me a nervous wreck.
You follow the rules because God tells you to and if you don't, God will punish you. You swear to a set of beliefs and you're on God's side. So a question, "Why do I have to obey this rule?" can only be answered by "Because it's a sin and God said don't do it."
This is a juridical understanding of sin predominantly found in Western thought and its forms of Christianity. The Christian East sees sin as a thought, word, or deed that hinders one from the self emptying necessary for union with God, and in that sense its approach is holistic and not juridical. The rest of the post the quote above was extracted from would be similar in understanding.
The concept Buddhism is concerned with is NOT: morality, rules, preventing harm to others etc, but about one thing, and you should remember this: suffering (dukkha).
Dukkha is Buddha's quest. He realizes that people suffer for various reasons (or are subject to inconveniences, not necessarily being "nailed to the cross" kind of suffering). He sees himself to be subject to it as is any other being. His path is a study of what suffering is.
Everything else must be understood in that context.
So, how would the precepts fit into all this?
Remember, what the Buddha is concerned about is suffering. Now, there are many instances that a person is not quite happy. So, lets look at when does a person suffer?
Does a person suffer when feels loving kindness towards other people?
No, not quite.
Does a person suffer when he feels joy? Or when he accepts change and takes it as a good thing? Or when he respects other people?
Not quite.
But now look at the precepts. Does having enemies, or being in fear, suck? Does living in a world you think cannot provide what you need, so you need to steal, sound enjoyable? What about protecting some sense of self, and then drinking, because others drink and it would be strange not to? Or because you think there is no alternative to having fun at such an occasion?
See, here things become more blurry. When you are breaking a precept without intention, you are not looking at what you are doing, so if you don't look, its likely you will miss danger, simply because you are blind to the whole situation. When, on the other hand, you are breaking a precept in attention - it is quite likely you are not in an enjoyable situation. Breaking a precept can be an indicator of you being in the "wrong" frame of mind. And possibly busy making it worse. So by calling yourself a Buddhist, you are attempting to end suffering by, well, suffering. And only Christianity works this way
Thing with this is, the more you do it, the more likely you are to repeat it (concept of karma starts to become relevant here). The more you kill, the more likely it is, you will see another person as an enemy. This is because the emotion you operate by (for example, fear), will extend itself to yet another circumstance. The more you practice it, the more situations this same way of behaving will operate in, because, after all, it works!
The same goes with alcohol. First it is just in that single situation. But if you were acting on one of the negative emotions (negative even slightly, like boredom) when that emotion appears again, you are likely to go the same route.
So its: situation > bad emotion > bad action > resolution of emotion > confirmation of action as correct > new situation > more likely the same bad emotions as previously > bad action > etc
Before you know it, you are in hell. And as i mentioned, you don't end suffering BY suffering in Buddhism.
Going WAY back to the second post (can't remember who said it now) that said alcohol and drugs are intoxicants, but smoking (nicotine) is not? Since when?? Have you ever smoked and felt what it does to you when you've never done it before? It absolutely is an intoxicant...just that your body adapts to it quickly. People who are addicted to nicotine absolutely have heedlessness in their minds, because they are mostly a slave to their addiction. Their live revolves around it much of the time. So how is that not an intoxicant? It negatively affects your mind and your thinking, big time, and I'd think that that would be included, considering the reasoning for disallowing intoxicants.
The concept Buddhism is concerned with is NOT: morality, rules, preventing harm to others etc, but about one thing, and you should remember this: suffering (dukkha).
....
So is, perhaps, Buddhism not the answer to all of life?
This has actually occurred to me many times, when people on this forum have responded to the question "What is Buddhism" with the short response "A way to end suffering.
Perhaps Buddhism is simply a way to end (or at least cope with) suffering.
But then, does there not need to be morality and rules which are separate from Buddhism?
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
Buddhism has often been described as a map: something you trace and study, but the walk and journey is separate, and accomplished by you; Buddhism is also very often also referred to as a 'raft' transporting you from one bank to the other, but once you have reached the bank, the raft is no longer required.... All morality and rules are intertwined with, and can be completely separate from, Buddhism. The morals and rules are there; the context and frame of mind with which you apply them, is your choice. They are tools, you are the carpenter.
But then, does there not need to be morality and rules which are separate from Buddhism?
To accomplish what? Where does that need come from? Rules, enforced by whom?
There are rules - if an object is a stone, it falls to the ground (usually, not always). When enough conditions combine, a new situation arises. What else do you want?
But then, does there not need to be morality and rules which are separate from Buddhism?
To accomplish what? Where does that need come from? Rules, enforced by whom?
There are rules - if an object is a stone, it falls to the ground (usually, not always). When enough conditions combine, a new situation arises. What else do you want?
For the good of society. After all, not everyone practices Buddhism, not every Buddhist follows the 5 Precepts.
But then, does there not need to be morality and rules which are separate from Buddhism?
To accomplish what? Where does that need come from? Rules, enforced by whom?
There are rules - if an object is a stone, it falls to the ground (usually, not always). When enough conditions combine, a new situation arises. What else do you want?
For the good of society. After all, not everyone practices Buddhism, not every Buddhist follows the 5 Precepts.
You didn't answer all the questions.
Anyway, what would that good of society be then? I mean, outside of already striving for cessation of suffering? An example, maybe? Are you saying there are actions that are outside of being wholesome (reduce suffering), that can be done for the good of society, and thus need rules?
It is a phrase that is way too often used to make a group feel superior to another. Kind, good people against, well, somebody else; depending on the circumstances. Or in this case, practicing Buddhists for the salvation of those poor "not practicing, or, non Buddhists".
As i was saying. Being nailed to the cross for salvation works only in Christianity. In Buddhism, it only hurts.
So by calling yourself a Buddhist, you are attempting to end suffering by, well, suffering. And only Christianity works this way
As long as we are referring to transcending suffering through non-avoidance rather than trying to relieve suffering through actions that ultimately result in more suffering then yes.
The 1NT – “All of life is suffering” is the ground state of unenlightened beings, and if you accept the law of karma then that is your judge.
Karma being an aspect of the law of cause and effect would be considered significant when it affects one’s experience. What does your karma tell you? Are you in state of bliss, suffering, or a mixture of both?
Negative actions are a hindrance to enlightenment while virtue is requisite. You can’t put the cart before the horse.
But then, does there not need to be morality and rules which are separate from Buddhism?
To accomplish what? Where does that need come from? Rules, enforced by whom?
There are rules - if an object is a stone, it falls to the ground (usually, not always). When enough conditions combine, a new situation arises. What else do you want?
For the good of society. After all, not everyone practices Buddhism, not every Buddhist follows the 5 Precepts.
You didn't answer all the questions.
Anyway, what would that good of society be then? I mean, outside of already striving for cessation of suffering? An example, maybe? Are you saying there are actions that are outside of being wholesome (reduce suffering), that can be done for the good of society, and thus need rules?
It is a phrase that is way too often used to make a group feel superior to another. Kind, good people against, well, somebody else; depending on the circumstances. Or in this case, practicing Buddhists for the salvation of those poor "not practicing, or, non Buddhists".
As i was saying. Being nailed to the cross for salvation works only in Christianity. In Buddhism, it only hurts.
Let's say you have a society where there are no rules/laws, only 5 Precepts...which according to many here are training guidelines.
People treat the Precepts as training guidelines, not as rules:
They are therefore free to kill or maim other people, men, women, and children, pets, and other animals. They are free to steal. They are free to commit any sexual act they wish. They are free to libel and slander. They are free to imbibe any alcoholic beverage or drug without limit and to give such to any other person regardless of age. They can do all these things because the Precepts are just training guidelines, not rules, not laws.
Now before you say you're going to extremes. No, all those things happen in virtually every city, ever day, all over the world, in countries that are predominantly Buddhist or Christian or any other religion. Pick up the newspaper. It's all there. Constantly.
So, since the religion doesn't outlaw actions, the society will have to. Through law enforcement agencies.
Being nailed to the cross for salvation works only in Christianity. In Buddhism, it only hurts.
This is true, but it would definitely be painful beyond words for anyone to be nailed to a cross. However, there is much more to the mystery of our salvation and the life giving Cross than merely the physical aspects.
Christ said “Whosoever would be my disciple must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.” We see the whole orientation of our life as having within ourselves the mind or self-emptying love of Christ.
This is not something one just declares once and then puts a sticker on their car. It requires much work and sacrifice. Christ said "He who endures until the end will be saved", and St Paul said “I die daily".
An interesting thing is that Saha or Samsara means endurance.
Alright so I'm confused. I'm a total noob when it comes to Buddhism (well not total, I have done a bit of reading which is why I'm confused). And I've been having a hard time clarifying what is and isn't allowed.
I was reading a thread on here where people had mentioned that they smoked/drank for example. So I think to myself, "wait a minute, is that even allowed?" so I look into the precepts and drugs/alcohol and basically fun (music, dancing etc) are prohibited.
What exactly am I not understanding here? Are those precepts only for the uber strict to follow? Only for a certain branch of Buddhism? Where's the side of Buddhism where this is allowed, because I think that's where I want to go :P
And if different branches/schools of Buddhism can differ so greatly, does that make any one more correct than the other?
Yeah multiple questions I know, but I wanted to get as much in as I could in one post lol. One more thing, what exactly is prohibited by like all schools? Killing? Because I'm totally bad at that (not because I kill people, but insects....lots of them...)
Thanks
I think it's helpful to put things like this into context, and then go from there. For instance, there are multiple levels of precepts, and lay-followers usually observe the five precepts; but they all serve much the same goal, which is laying the groundwork for the rest of the practice.
The first benefit of following the five precepts, which are things we voluntarily take on because we believe that there's something skillful about doing so, is that it helps to protect ourselves and others from the results of our unskillful actions. The second benefit is that they constitute the basic level of virtue the Buddha advises is necessary for the peace of mind conducive to a successful practice, especially in regard to meditation, and they're seen as gifts "that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests" (AN 8.39).
In Buddhism, all intentional actions (kamma) are understood to have potential consequences, and actions that cause harm to others and/or ourselves are considered to be unskillful and something to be avoided. But the Buddha never condemns people merely for making unskillful choices or breaking the precepts; he simply urges them (albeit with strong language sometimes) to learn from their mistakes and to make an effort to renounce their unskillful behaviour with the understanding that skillful behaviour leads to long-term welfare and happiness.
Certainly our adherence to the precepts will improve in the course of our practice, and skillful actions (done out of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusions) will be seen to be morally superior (i.e., more beneficial, wholesome, and conducive to pleasure and happiness) than unskillful ones; but we're not expected to be perfect in our morality right away. As the Buddha explains in AN 9.7, only one "whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis [i.e., an arahant], cannot possibly transgress these five principles." At that point, they're no longer precepts, but a natural part of our being. Some of us are just harder to train than others.
As for the eight precepts, where one completely refrains from sex and also from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon); from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics; and lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place, these are simply there to foster a contemplative atmosphere and are designed to be more supportive to meditation practice, nothing more. They're mainly taken on the Uposatha observance days, which are traditional (but not mandatory) days of more intensive reflection and meditation for both lay followers and monastics alike.
The ten precepts are for those who wish to further their practice in a more monastic atmosphere, and are observed by novice monks and nuns. They're essentially the same as the eight precepts with the addition of one prohibiting the handling of money.
And, of course, there are the monks and nuns precepts that are followed by those who are fully ordained and wish to spend their lives committed to the practice of Dhamma, which are designed to not only foster harmony within the monastic community itself, but between the monastic community and the lay-community on which they depend for their material support as well.
So, Buddhism isn't trying to outlaw fun with these precepts, but foster a blameless lifestyle that's not only conducive to communal harmony, but to the practice of meditation and the development of insight. We're free to take on whatever level of training we want, and even though some of the precepts may seem overly restrictive, there are good reasons for following them.
Take the fifth precept, for example. Sure, drinking and things like that can be fun sometimes, but the use of drugs and alcohol for the purpose of intoxication often leads to carelessness, and makes it easier for us to break the other four precepts: "Through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people" (Sn 2.14).
How you choose to approach the precepts, and how strictly you choose to try and follow them, is entirely up to you; but if you look at them carefully, I think you'll see that they have a lot to offer, and can be effective tools for healing a suffering heart and mind.
... 9. "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self." ... 16. "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are born and produced from craving. Craving has what as its source...? Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...? Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...? Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...? Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source... Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from ignorance."
... 9. "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self." ... 16. "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are born and produced from craving. Craving has what as its source...? Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...? Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...? Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...? Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source... Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from ignorance."
:cool:
I noticed that you mentioned that this is what the Buddha thought about rules. While I see quite an interesting quote here, I don't quite see...or rather understand where and what his opinion actually was?
... 9. "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self." ... 16. "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are born and produced from craving. Craving has what as its source...? Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...? Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...? Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...? Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source... Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from ignorance."
:cool:
I noticed that you mentioned that this is what the Buddha thought about rules. While I see quite an interesting quote here, I don't quite see...or rather understand where and what his opinion actually was?
Frankly, in my view, Mithril just doesn't like rules. But the passage he quotes doesn't say don't follow rules. It says not to cling to rules. There's a difference.
One extreme is to follow rules rigidly, which I believe is what the passage refers to. For example, the teacher bent on following rules who wants a student expelled (not suspended) from school for chewing gum.
On the other extreme is the attitude that (all) rules are meant to be (always) broken.
In the middle is a more balanced approach -- that many (perhaps even most) rules are there for a purpose, but some need to be broken, depending on the situation.
In the middle is a more balanced approach -- that many (perhaps even most) rules are there for a purpose, but some need to be broken, depending on the situation.
But doesn't that mean they aren't rules then anymore, but rather become guidelines?
Somehow i consider a rule to be something you don't just ignore on whim.
2. a. An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest. b. The body of regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for governing the conduct of its members.
..i guess the problem here is by whom the rules are prescribed. If that authority allows for the rules not to be followed in certain cases its alright; but i don't see the Buddha saying if you don't like the rules just get punished - because if you don't cling to rules, and there comes a situation where you think you need to break a rule, then this is the option you have. Otherwise it would be clinging to rules out of fear (of punisment). This is why i think the Buddha doesn't have a high opinion on someone making up rules, and following random rules, or such.
You could say, why then does he give rules to the monks in the vinaya? I guess he acknowledges the fact that some rules have to exist for any kind of community to function, but even here he only gives only 4 our 8 rules (defeat) that are actually strictly rules rather guidelines (looking by the way they are enforced). Others are more like - you may not follow this, but you have to tell - because there might be a reason for those actions to be discouraged.
I guess he says don't be a troublemaker unnecessarily, but don't blindly follow rules either - rather you should follow your heart.
In the middle is a more balanced approach -- that many (perhaps even most) rules are there for a purpose, but some need to be broken, depending on the situation.
But doesn't that mean they aren't rules then anymore, but rather become guidelines?
Somehow i consider a rule to be something you don't just ignore on whim.
2. a. An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest. b. The body of regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for governing the conduct of its members.
..i guess the problem here is by whom the rules are prescribed. If that authority allows for the rules not to be followed in certain cases its alright; but i don't see the Buddha saying if you don't like the rules just get punished - because if you don't cling to rules, and there comes a situation where you think you need to break a rule, then this is the option you have. Otherwise it would be clinging to rules out of fear (of punisment). This is why i think the Buddha doesn't have a high opinion on someone making up rules, and following random rules, or such.
You could say, why then does he give rules to the monks in the vinaya? I guess he acknowledges the fact that some rules have to exist for any kind of community to function, but even here he only gives only 4 our 8 rules (defeat) that are actually strictly rules rather guidelines (looking by the way they are enforced). Others are more like - you may not follow this, but you have to tell - because there might be a reason for those actions to be discouraged.
I guess he says don't be a troublemaker unnecessarily, but don't blindly follow rules either - rather you should follow your heart.
Frankly, in my view, Mithril just doesn't like rules.
No. I'm not talking about whim. Let me see if I can give you a good example. How about the rule in many states back in the pre-1960 era that Black people could only drink from "colored water fountains"...a baby is crying due to extreme thirst, and someone allows the baby to have water from the "colored water fountain". They broke a rule, but not out of whim.
Comments
I used to have a problem with the term "rule" as if it meant I was giving up my personal freedom, but have found out quite the contrary. I'm freer now following the rules than I had ever been before. I discovered that I was actually a slave to the things that I thought were representative of my personal freedom.
The rules can show us how attached we really are.
But invariably we think, "Oh suck it, I'm gonna go my own way... I'm sure I'll be fine"... and then we find we're not.... and then the next time we think "You know what? I'm going to give it a go, and see how I get on..." and we get on really well.
Experience is the key here. And sometimes, like a kid told the fire is hot, we still have to touch it, and go 'ouch' before realising for ourselves that the fire is hot...
:facepalm:
We can throw out the word punishment and perhaps use the word benefit for following them instead. However, the opposite of a benefit is a loss. The bottom line is that afflictive emotions/passions and our negative habits/sins prevents true happiness.
We fall down often while following the "rules", but the important thing is not to give up and the fruits will be progressively realized or revealed.
"It saves time when someone opens their argument by copy-pasting a dictionary. You immediately know they 1) think length counts over quality (which is why they bought that penis pump), 2) are incapable of stating their own thoughts and 3) are stupid."
(Not calling anyone stupid, I just think their way of presenting it is funny)
Read more: The 8 Stupidest Defenses Against Accusations of Sexism | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-stupidest-defenses-against-accusations-sexism/#ixzz26wWrZ6kN
Through experience I found out there is a very good purpose for the rule and whilst it was a painful experience in many ways it has helped me accept the Buddhist precepts without having to experience each first hand through testing the consequences of not following them.
A man may plunder as long as it serves his ends, but when others are plundered, he who has plundered gets plundered in turn.
A fool thinks, 'Now's my chance,' as long as his evil has yet to ripen.
But when it ripens, the fool falls into pain.
Killing, you gain your killer. Conquering, you gain one who will conquer you;
insulting, insult; harassing, harassment.
And so, through the cycle of action, he who has plundered gets plundered in turn.
— SN 3.15
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.015.than.html
and from the Dhammapada - 66
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.05.than.html#dhp-69
Fools, their wisdom weak,
are their own enemies
as they go through life,
doing evil that bears bitter fruit.
For sure we may often not want to or see the good purpose of the guidelines and then this is a chance to work with that - to go with that feeling, not hang on so tightly to ourselves that we have to go after what we want rather than what is recommended, a chance to move away from the narrow vision of what we want to the wider view. I hope that makes sense.
Just as a matter of interest, I attended a academic meeting last week where a psychiatrist I work with talked on the long term effects of marijuana use - he had SPECT scans and other radiological evidence to illustrate his points. I work in older persons mental health and the use of marijuana long term is now becoming increasingly evident in our client group. I have seen in my work how marijuana is not a harmless drug.
Buddhism has precepts. Guidelines for avoiding suffering in your life and causing suffering in others. These are warning signs saying, "It's dangerous if you go down this path." If you ignore the sign and stick your toe over the line, probably nothing will happen. But, take a look at all the people who have messed up their lives drinking or doing drugs, for instance. Every single one of them thought, "I can handle this. I'm cool. I won't be like those other idiots." So maybe nothing bad happens, maybe only a little suffering that causes you to reconsider, or maybe you crash and burn. The precept is warning you, be careful and better to avoid this path.
It's hard to wrap you mind around the concept of a religion without a set of sins that define if you're one of the flock. In our case, if you're a Buddhist who smokes week and ends up busted and sitting in jail for possession, then you're a Buddhist sitting in jail who had to learn the hard way. As a Buddhist, you can't blame society for stupid drug laws that make marijuana a crime, or the cop that could have ignored the smell of pot in the car, etc. You have to blame yourself because the precepts told you intoxicants lead to suffering.
You know, when we try to accept blame, we can't find anyone to accept it. So it does no good.
If we realised there was no blame to accept, we wouldn't struggle to put it onto self or others, thinking this imaginary quantity has to go somewhere.
Blaming others is the act of shifting blame to where it doesn't belong, but so is blaming self.
Sometimes, we have to step up to the plate, and accept blame, where blame is due.
The secret is to not keep flogging ourselves for it.
So many people hate the word 'blame' but it helps to use it when you need to distinguish between it, and 'responsibility'.
For example:
A couple are having difficulties in their marriage. One of the partners (spouse A) is tempted by outside factors and decides to stray, have an affair, and is unfaithful.
Spouse B finds out, and this causes a further rift and division in the fabric of the marriage.
Spouse A is absolutely, to blame, full-square 100%, for having cheated.
But BOTH spouses are 100% responsible for their individual 50% roles within the marriage and need to look beyond the affair to see what the catalyst, the basic cause, for this mess, was, and is.
Blame lies with spouse A. Responsibility lies with spouse A/B.
However, when Spouse A is genuinely contrite, sees "the error of their ways" and is willing to do whatever it takes to remedy the matter and repair the marriage, then Spouse B has got to refrain from beating spouse A over the head with the fact they cheated. And Spouse A does too.
Blame is a loaded word ... and it is good to look at our reactions to being blamed.
In my view the question is not the red herring 'who is to blame?' but rather 'what is to be done?'.
You in the context of 'you dropped the ball, you are to blame', which is a statement of fact.
I in the context 'don't blame yourself', which is metaphysical.
J/K....
It's rather like another word that is frequently bandied about as a replacement for another word, which also has 'negative connotations'...
People refer to "Issues" which is far more sanitized that saying 'Problems'.
'he has issues with alcohol'... no, 'he has a PROBLEM with alcohol' - !
We've all become a little too tender in our approaches, and sometimes, you have to TILII.
It's one reason teachers in the UK have been advised to refrain from marking students' work in red. Apparently, it has a negative effect and makes them feel victimised. ( :wtf: )
Now, the colour green is 'de rigeur'.
Personally, I believe I must have been irreparably damaged by seeing "8/10, watch your punctuation" at the bottom of my French essay.....
:rolleyes:
allot evey day, but now it seems like my focus on the reality of the Buddha the dharma
and the sangha are so much closer to me now,,, folks say that weed gives you a deeper meditation but its not real and it pulls you of the path to enlightenment
and gives a false sence of peace
so take it as you will, but find that my new meditation uninhibated by weed
is my new high and when i stop my meditation im refreshed and awake
so peace and joy to you all
namaste
Coz
Of course people don't like to blame themselves. I've known my share of people who ended up in prison or on the wrong side of the law, and almost every one of them blamed someone, anyone but themselves. Even if they admitted to doing something that they knew was a crime.
And not every pile of crap that comes your way is your own fault. Every jobless person struggling on food stamps is not lazy, shiftless, etc. In fact, most of them are not. They are only jobless. So we look for people to blame when there is nobody at fault.
As Buddhists, we should strive to accept responsibility for our own actions and the karma those actions create. If not us, then who? We know it's not God's fault or Satan's work. It's us.
Dukkha is Buddha's quest. He realizes that people suffer for various reasons (or are subject to inconveniences, not necessarily being "nailed to the cross" kind of suffering). He sees himself to be subject to it as is any other being. His path is a study of what suffering is.
Everything else must be understood in that context.
So, how would the precepts fit into all this?
Remember, what the Buddha is concerned about is suffering. Now, there are many instances that a person is not quite happy. So, lets look at when does a person suffer?
Does a person suffer when feels loving kindness towards other people?
No, not quite.
Does a person suffer when he feels joy? Or when he accepts change and takes it as a good thing? Or when he respects other people?
Not quite.
But now look at the precepts. Does having enemies, or being in fear, suck? Does living in a world you think cannot provide what you need, so you need to steal, sound enjoyable? What about protecting some sense of self, and then drinking, because others drink and it would be strange not to? Or because you think there is no alternative to having fun at such an occasion?
See, here things become more blurry. When you are breaking a precept without intention, you are not looking at what you are doing, so if you don't look, its likely you will miss danger, simply because you are blind to the whole situation. When, on the other hand, you are breaking a precept in attention - it is quite likely you are not in an enjoyable situation. Breaking a precept can be an indicator of you being in the "wrong" frame of mind. And possibly busy making it worse. So by calling yourself a Buddhist, you are attempting to end suffering by, well, suffering. And only Christianity works this way
Thing with this is, the more you do it, the more likely you are to repeat it (concept of karma starts to become relevant here). The more you kill, the more likely it is, you will see another person as an enemy. This is because the emotion you operate by (for example, fear), will extend itself to yet another circumstance. The more you practice it, the more situations this same way of behaving will operate in, because, after all, it works!
The same goes with alcohol. First it is just in that single situation. But if you were acting on one of the negative emotions (negative even slightly, like boredom) when that emotion appears again, you are likely to go the same route.
So its: situation > bad emotion > bad action > resolution of emotion > confirmation of action as correct > new situation > more likely the same bad emotions as previously > bad action > etc
Before you know it, you are in hell. And as i mentioned, you don't end suffering BY suffering in Buddhism.
This has actually occurred to me many times, when people on this forum have responded to the question "What is Buddhism" with the short response "A way to end suffering.
Perhaps Buddhism is simply a way to end (or at least cope with) suffering.
But then, does there not need to be morality and rules which are separate from Buddhism?
Buddhism is also very often also referred to as a 'raft' transporting you from one bank to the other, but once you have reached the bank, the raft is no longer required....
All morality and rules are intertwined with, and can be completely separate from, Buddhism.
The morals and rules are there; the context and frame of mind with which you apply them, is your choice.
They are tools, you are the carpenter.
What useful thing will you make today?
There are rules - if an object is a stone, it falls to the ground (usually, not always). When enough conditions combine, a new situation arises. What else do you want?
Be happy, joyous and free. Surrender and embrace not knowing!
Anyway, what would that good of society be then? I mean, outside of already striving for cessation of suffering? An example, maybe? Are you saying there are actions that are outside of being wholesome (reduce suffering), that can be done for the good of society, and thus need rules?
It is a phrase that is way too often used to make a group feel superior to another. Kind, good people against, well, somebody else; depending on the circumstances. Or in this case, practicing Buddhists for the salvation of those poor "not practicing, or, non Buddhists".
As i was saying. Being nailed to the cross for salvation works only in Christianity. In Buddhism, it only hurts.
The 1NT – “All of life is suffering” is the ground state of unenlightened beings, and if you accept the law of karma then that is your judge.
Karma being an aspect of the law of cause and effect would be considered significant when it affects one’s experience. What does your karma tell you? Are you in state of bliss, suffering, or a mixture of both?
Negative actions are a hindrance to enlightenment while virtue is requisite. You can’t put the cart before the horse.
People treat the Precepts as training guidelines, not as rules:
They are therefore free to kill or maim other people, men, women, and children, pets, and other animals. They are free to steal. They are free to commit any sexual act they wish. They are free to libel and slander. They are free to imbibe any alcoholic beverage or drug without limit and to give such to any other person regardless of age. They can do all these things because the Precepts are just training guidelines, not rules, not laws.
Now before you say you're going to extremes. No, all those things happen in virtually every city, ever day, all over the world, in countries that are predominantly Buddhist or Christian or any other religion. Pick up the newspaper. It's all there. Constantly.
So, since the religion doesn't outlaw actions, the society will have to. Through law enforcement agencies.
Christ said “Whosoever would be my disciple must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.” We see the whole orientation of our life as having within ourselves the mind or self-emptying love of Christ.
This is not something one just declares once and then puts a sticker on their car. It requires much work and sacrifice. Christ said "He who endures until the end will be saved", and St Paul said “I die daily".
An interesting thing is that Saha or Samsara means endurance.
The first benefit of following the five precepts, which are things we voluntarily take on because we believe that there's something skillful about doing so, is that it helps to protect ourselves and others from the results of our unskillful actions. The second benefit is that they constitute the basic level of virtue the Buddha advises is necessary for the peace of mind conducive to a successful practice, especially in regard to meditation, and they're seen as gifts "that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests" (AN 8.39).
In Buddhism, all intentional actions (kamma) are understood to have potential consequences, and actions that cause harm to others and/or ourselves are considered to be unskillful and something to be avoided. But the Buddha never condemns people merely for making unskillful choices or breaking the precepts; he simply urges them (albeit with strong language sometimes) to learn from their mistakes and to make an effort to renounce their unskillful behaviour with the understanding that skillful behaviour leads to long-term welfare and happiness.
Certainly our adherence to the precepts will improve in the course of our practice, and skillful actions (done out of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusions) will be seen to be morally superior (i.e., more beneficial, wholesome, and conducive to pleasure and happiness) than unskillful ones; but we're not expected to be perfect in our morality right away. As the Buddha explains in AN 9.7, only one "whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis [i.e., an arahant], cannot possibly transgress these five principles." At that point, they're no longer precepts, but a natural part of our being. Some of us are just harder to train than others.
As for the eight precepts, where one completely refrains from sex and also from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon); from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics; and lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place, these are simply there to foster a contemplative atmosphere and are designed to be more supportive to meditation practice, nothing more. They're mainly taken on the Uposatha observance days, which are traditional (but not mandatory) days of more intensive reflection and meditation for both lay followers and monastics alike.
The ten precepts are for those who wish to further their practice in a more monastic atmosphere, and are observed by novice monks and nuns. They're essentially the same as the eight precepts with the addition of one prohibiting the handling of money.
And, of course, there are the monks and nuns precepts that are followed by those who are fully ordained and wish to spend their lives committed to the practice of Dhamma, which are designed to not only foster harmony within the monastic community itself, but between the monastic community and the lay-community on which they depend for their material support as well.
So, Buddhism isn't trying to outlaw fun with these precepts, but foster a blameless lifestyle that's not only conducive to communal harmony, but to the practice of meditation and the development of insight. We're free to take on whatever level of training we want, and even though some of the precepts may seem overly restrictive, there are good reasons for following them.
Take the fifth precept, for example. Sure, drinking and things like that can be fun sometimes, but the use of drugs and alcohol for the purpose of intoxication often leads to carelessness, and makes it easier for us to break the other four precepts: "Through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people" (Sn 2.14).
How you choose to approach the precepts, and how strictly you choose to try and follow them, is entirely up to you; but if you look at them carefully, I think you'll see that they have a lot to offer, and can be effective tools for healing a suffering heart and mind.
What the Buddha thought about rules: :cool:
I noticed that you mentioned that this is what the Buddha thought about rules. While I see quite an interesting quote here, I don't quite see...or rather understand where and what his opinion actually was?
One extreme is to follow rules rigidly, which I believe is what the passage refers to. For example, the teacher bent on following rules who wants a student expelled (not suspended) from school for chewing gum.
On the other extreme is the attitude that (all) rules are meant to be (always) broken.
In the middle is a more balanced approach -- that many (perhaps even most) rules are there for a purpose, but some need to be broken, depending on the situation.
Somehow i consider a rule to be something you don't just ignore on whim.
Thinking about this... ..i guess the problem here is by whom the rules are prescribed. If that authority allows for the rules not to be followed in certain cases its alright; but i don't see the Buddha saying if you don't like the rules just get punished - because if you don't cling to rules, and there comes a situation where you think you need to break a rule, then this is the option you have. Otherwise it would be clinging to rules out of fear (of punisment). This is why i think the Buddha doesn't have a high opinion on someone making up rules, and following random rules, or such.
You could say, why then does he give rules to the monks in the vinaya? I guess he acknowledges the fact that some rules have to exist for any kind of community to function, but even here he only gives only 4 our 8 rules (defeat) that are actually strictly rules rather guidelines (looking by the way they are enforced). Others are more like - you may not follow this, but you have to tell - because there might be a reason for those actions to be discouraged.
I guess he says don't be a troublemaker unnecessarily, but don't blindly follow rules either - rather you should follow your heart.