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.
Which of the 5 precepts do you have the hardest time with keeping?
Vanilli
Veteran
I struggle with telling little 'harmless' white lies sometimes, often without thinking about it but I'm working on it. Which do you struggle with the most?
1
Comments
I think we just talked about this in another thread recently but now I can't remember which!
It depends on the day and what you mean. My teacher gives different precepts. Of his, the "do no harm to any living being" is the hardest, thanks to the height of mosquito and biting fly season and my lack of a vegetarian/vegan diet.
I don't keep the 5th precept. But it is also not a precept my teacher asks of us nor I have taken it and then repeatedly broken it. I've just never taken it. Whether that means it is the one I have the hardest time with depends how you look at it, I suppose. I don't consider it so because it's not one I'm working on. I have a beer or a glass of wine when I feel for one. Or a lovely mimosa in the summer. I'm cautious of how much and how I feel and to make sure I am not becoming heedless. It is rare I ever have more than one. Can't really say what I think of it, it just is not a priority for me right now.
I don't feel guilt over breaking any of them. I don't really practice the 5th one, like I said. The others, I do observe my thoughts and behavior and investigate them constantly. But I don't apply guilt or other attributes to it. I just note that I made a promise to myself about how I wanted to practice, and I didn't live up to my promise to myself, and note how I can do better in the future. Then I leave it be.
As far as I can figure out, the profound importance of the precepts lies not so much in keeping them as in acknowledging that I don't keep them and then -- for a change -- shouldering the responsibility for not keeping them.
Sometimes the failure to keep them is in-your-face and sometimes -- as becomes more evident with longer practice -- it is subtle and seemingly at a distance (eg. the country in which I live and to which I contribute prosecutes various wars in which many are killed. It may be easy to sweep it under the rug that I am a killer, but, the more closely I look, the less able I am to sweep).
Long story short, I am a liar, cheat, thief, killer, etc. A little humility wouldn't hurt me. And attention/responsibility are pretty good additives.
I haven't formally taken the precepts. I won't take any vows that I will knowingly break, and the first precept is a real hang up for a dedicated consumer of dead animal flesh like myself.
If monks and even the Dalai Lama can take that precept and still eat meat, it doesn't have to be a hangup for anyone else, either. But there are many ways to make improvements to your diet and where your food is sourced from that minimalizes harm. Others will disagree, just my point of view. I don't use them as an excuse, I do investigate often my feelings on the matter, and have made big changes to my diet as a result. Causing no harm is a pretty tall order in our current world, thus we can truly only do the best all our circumstances will allow us to.
@Vanilli
You are lucky only having 5 precepts.
Zen folks get to drag around 16 precepts just to make ourselves feel special.
..oopps
just broke another couple of them!.
^^ damn, thank God I did not went to a Zen monastry till now, because if i would, then i think all my time there, i would been hit by the teacher with his stick either in me doing zazen, or in answering koans, or in asking questions and always by me not able to keep even a single precept...
^^^ such behavour would be a great asset ...
Only the first two ................... and the last three.
Seriously, it's not important to keep precepts. Truth sets us free, not man-made morality.
How convenient.
All Buddha's teaching are man-made.
You are joking. But on a serious note, without morality, there cannot be calm at mind and without it there can be no knowing of who we truely are or our true nature. As in Therevada teachings, it is said that sila(morality) leads to samadhi(concentration) and panna(wisdom), samadhi leads to panna and sila, panna leads to sila and samadhi - each one supporting the other two and the three together grow.
Spirituality cannot exist without morality and so almost all religions be it Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity etc, morality forms the basis of our conduct in the external world.
But the truth he pointed to isn't.
Morality is bullsh!t. Not long ago, owning slaves was considered moral even by peace-loving Christians; oppressing women was considered moral by compassionate Buddhists in China. With science and rationalism, all that's changing.
^^^^^^
To my mind, ethics are the practices employed in the presence of others.
Morality is what you do when no one is looking.
If your morality is bullshit, that's up to you.
Leave about what other people in your these above statements considered morality to be. Tell me as per you, what is morality?
Thou shalt not eat the whole packet of biscuits or covet oxes ... eh wait, wrong religion, thread and ...
I struggle with all of them. Just glad I am not a nun - 311 precepts [lobster faints] ...
http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=227_bhikkhu_precepts
truth might just be truth. But what we do in accessing that truth and how close we really are to reality is affected by our moral behavior.
People may have believed it was morally right to own slaves. But I think they were lying to themselves. Their morality wasn't based on knowing their true nature, which is where people get lost. Choosing your morals based on fear just doesn't work. A truly open heart will tell anyone what right from wrong is. But most people need help to get to that point, and that is what we use spirituality and religion for. Just some people choose to see things the way they want rather than open their hearts to the truth.
I don't think moral guidelines, be they precepts, commandments, or whatever, are bullshit. They are a way to attempt to put true nature into words and ways to point us in the right direction.
Agree!
Not only that, they are guidance from a person who is much more enlightened than ourselves! That should be worth at least a little bit of faith in them. 
Assuming there is a thing called morality, you could say the buddha was moral. If regular people try to become moral, they end up becoming intolerable, self-righteous pr!cks. You see that around you every day.
Most people like to think of themselves are moral, however our ignorance gets in the way. It's a disease we're all afflicted with in different ways.
In any case, Buddha advocated for compassion and kindness to all. I swear there is something in his teachings about refraining from abusive and divisive speech...
People who don't advocate morality, advocate immorality. Which only, sooner or later, affects them.
@genie: there is a difference between being moral and being right. you can be right based on your thinking, but it may be moral or immoral. morality comes from heart, but righteousness comes from brain.
i think being moral is to be good and kind to yourself and to others - treat others as you would like them to treat you.
if a person is moral in his conduct, then others will not find him intolerable, rather others will be amazed initially from his action and then might be inspired to practice morality in their conduct. everyone likes to be loved, accepted, getting care, kindness etc. morality is not about what others think of you, rather the basis on which we should treat both ourselves and others. also morality includes a large number of virtues of kindness, compassion, honesty, politeness, humbleness etc and needs a large number of qualities like patience, contentment, equanimity etc.
try doing small acts of kindness as i think @Vastmind suggested in another thread as suggested in this url: https://www.randomactsofkindness.org/kindness-ideas
Very well said @misecmisc1 I would suggest this change of Heart is the basis of genuine aspiration and quite naturally leads to a following of internal rather than external ethics such as commandments, legality or precepts.
How does it come about? Well we have to decide to start somewhere ... and quite naturally on the Buddhist path that may be in externals - precepts.
I think it's all a matter of semantics. For some people, morality and compassion are synonymous, so if they hear statements like 'morality is bull' they get upset. Understandable. But for most people morality is all about following meaningless rules, so in that context one can say that morality is rather superficial and lacks substance. Like I said, it's all about semantics.
What you're talking about is law, not morality.
@genie -- If you're saying that YOU find those rules meaningless, that's your business. But if you're suggesting that THEY find them meaningless, it might be asked A. on what evidence do you base this generalization and B. why would anyone accede to rules that s/he found meaningless? Is it possible that in fact THEY find such rules meaningful, if only to assure a social acceptance?
As the assertions stand, I think a check of the bathroom mirror might be in order when it comes to "superficiality" and lack of "substance." There is a difference between saying "I don't like it" and "I don't like it and therefore it is necessarily bullshit."
One of the nice things about Buddhist practice is that it encourages a straightforward investigation and less reliance on preferences.
Like I said, it boils down to semantics.
Knowing what it right and wrong is not a case of semantics unless you are talking about the law.
No, it doesn't. Maybe in your mind, but Law does not = Morals, in any system.
In fact, as my legally-trained hubby keeps telling me, there is no such thing as Moral Law.
if there were, public floggings would be back in vogue....
@genie so if you don't believe in such things, what are you doing in Buddhism that is full of them with the eightfold path and the precepts? Since you are here, I assume you at least have interest in Buddhism whether you are practicing or not. What do you get out of it then if you don't believe in such things?
The Buddha prescribed the precepts as the path out of suffering - they come even before meditation. So if you're meditating but not trying to keep the precepts, then you're doing yourself a disservice. They are an antidote to pain and suffering.
That's very well put, @Vanilli.
The only thing I would add is the thought that perhaps Buddha used the 5 Basic Precepts as a means of reducing the suffering of both that individual and others. If I keep the Precepts, it reduces my suffering. If I keep the Precepts I may help reduce the suffering of others.
I agree, @ourself.
Maybe we need to be reminded of what semantics really is: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."
Semantics as @Genie is using it is really more of an un-useful cliche.
That's a good observation, @vinlyn.
thank you, federica
I would say that the precepts CAN come out of the meditation rather than preceding. This assumes that the process of 'unlearning' of meditation reveals a mind that already has noble qualities and those are just unleashed so to speak.
The above I think can be necessary for precepts that we are not yet ready to vow or take on board. For example I drink alcohol and if I had taken the vow of that precept I would have had to break it a lot. But over years and years of drinking and observing I realize that the actual experience of drinking does not bring the fruit it promises; can't explain. I think my awareness over the years has allowed me to see that. I haven't taken a vow yet but I can see that I am getting more towards 'renunciation' than I was before just by the fact that the 'pull' of drinking I am seeing more that it doesn't even satisfy me and that it doesn't matter to my happiness.
They do indeed.
This is because people react more to emotive confrontation, intention and context than to semantics
This is why the Buddha, who chose his words carefully, advocated 'right speech'.
@lobster look at it another way. Buddhists often wax eloquent on the importance of metta, that even bullies deserve compassion, etc. But present a slightly different PoV and all their metta goes out the window, lol.
Buddhists are a strange breed.
We put the strangest in a monastic setting, so they won't ...
Everyone deserves compassion. Yes, even bullies. That doesn't mean just because we truly believe it that we are capable of 100% practicing it. If we all could practice everything we believe all the time, none of us would be here. Also, how you present your point of view has a lot to do with how people react.
Found it strange, that's all. Buddhists want to practice tolerance even in the face of physical violence, yet they lose all their cool when confronted with mere ideas. Hmm.
Setting an intention for something in mind isn't the same as being able to perform in practice. It sets the stage, but follow through is required and is, of course, the hardest part. I can say in thought it is my true intention to be compassionate towards bullies (or worse). But in action when my son was bullied, the compassion did not come until later. I reacted first with angry and harsh words. It takes time and practice to change lifelong habitual reactions and actions. It only takes a moment (with some) to change them in your mind. I don't find it strange or surprising.
Also, online isn't the best indicator of how a somehow truly practices. It might tell a part of the story, but that is it. It is really the idea they are truly upset by? Or is it the lack of proper tone, setting, body posture, expression, and so on that is present in online conversation? Would how a person explains it in person come across the same online? Unlikely. So the reaction will be different as well. As you are reading this, you are assigning some sort of tone of voice to it that could be quite different than would actually come out if we were face to face. A lot is lacking in online communications. Hearing (reading) what is said is only half the story...and online the other half is completely missing.
I struggle with abstaining from killing because I truly enjoy my carnivorous ways.
I struggle with abstaining from false speech because I worry a lot about hurting others feelings.
Abstaining from fermented drink used to be a struggle for me, but, I have been sober for almost 7 years now.
Abstaining from sensual misconduct is difficult at times, because I am prone to gluttony.
Hard to say which is the most difficult. This was a good topic though, it's nice to take a moment to make myself aware of what I struggle with.
Are you a troll, @genie?
Your comments in general are making me think that you not only are not a Buddhist, but also that you have little idea of what Buddhism actually is.
Number four; no that's a lie :-)
Not my impression. Anyway trolls are wonderful.
Always be aware that people - trolls is only a word a Hinayanist would use - are coming with different baggage, just as we can be kind in preparation for the hidden wonders of our own dark corners ...
Yeah... @lobster, you can quit flogging the Hinayana dead horse now, OK....? You're not convincing anyone least of all, me.
Thanks.
Here's the thing with Hinayana. I don't personally care. But if people often feel it's offensive, why would one use it?
Because Theravadin is a heretical breakaway sect of the Greater Sangha, the Mahāsāṃghika. The Mahāsāṃghika some say was the origination for the Mahayana and the Theravada created by a bunch of discontented elders. I find the term Theravada far more offensive by implication that the Mahayana are young Buddhism, when The Theravada are younger ...
The Mahayana encompasses and predates the Theravada and they should be reminded, whether that causes offence or not. Should I call a rose a tulip just because some old men are threatened by Hinayana spinning emptiness. Maybe so ...
... and now back to the precepts that include calling a rose sweet by some other name ...
No, you shouldn't say anything to please anyone, unless, of course, you believe in right speech and compassion.