Self-Defense

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

So, the precepts (some of them considered grave for a reason) along with I suppose the eightfold path, is for those who are "less enlightened"? I am not sure I agree with this. Anyway, it may be as it may with that, but a samurai who used his sword for killing could hardly be called enlightened. Not even by a stretch.

I recall an expression from an old master that went something along the lines that “the sword is not to take life, but to give it.”
I think that we should avoid using the precepts as a measure to judge the practice of another, but they are important for our own practice.
Killing, is not limited to the body, but words and ideas kill as well. And when we get into a judgmental mindset of “he did this so he is not practicing the Buddha way”, that is killing too.
And to say whether one is enlightened or not just seems irrelevant to me. It seems to fixed.
Unenlightened people engage in enlightened activity and are spontaneously transformed into Buddhas.
Enlightened people engage in unenlightened activity and are manifesting the form of animals, hungry ghosts and demons.

[Hans]

Re: Self-Defense

Hello Fuken,

regarding your quote "Killing, is not limited to the body, but words and ideas kill as well." Well, the trouble with our Zennie discussions is this level-jumping from relative to ultimate and back again. We all do it, and we can't help it, but it also doesn't make things particularly easy.

I once posted a video clip showing me as the devil making fun of a cardboard iPad....that was part of a video test exercise. Almost ten thousand people watched it and dozens of people insulted me in the most despicable terms. And you know what, that doesn't bother me a lot. They might have killed compassionate speech or tolerance or whatever....but if they had come to my home with a shotgun and killed my family...that would have been a kind of killing that I'd deem completely different in relevance to my life.

In my limited novice view it appears that one of the underlying issued regarding precepts etc. is simply how we as individuals judge the importance of traditional Buddhist practices. Everyone of us has a different "cut off"-point where we seem to find that something isn't part of the Buddhist path anymore. I see our discussions here mainly as sharing perspectives and viewpoints, the only "judge" in an ultimate sense is going to be life itself.

On a purely personal note I find the progression from: traditional orthodox vinaya (hundreds of rules to be literally interpreted), to Mahayana vinaya approaches leading to the Brahmajala-Net Sutra to people like Shinran.... to Meiji restoration "allowing" monks to marry....to western lifestyle a very challenging development when viewed from the present. Basically we've been seeing a constant progression of re-interpreting precepts, which is good and inevitable. On the other hand I truly do feel that especially in the west we are making soft interpretations even more soft in many occasions so that our lifestyle won't get too challenged.

I do indeed find a lot of Japanese Zen to be more informed by confucianism, notions of "obligation" to the state and hierarchical structures than by the spirit of the Buddhadharma, as I am able to see it with my sand covered unsui eyes.

The fact that e.g. the Hagakure was written by a monk is a complete joke btw., at least when viewed with respect to the Pali sources and most Mahayana sources.

Shakyamuni simply gave his sword away. Can everyone do that? It seems not, but then I don't see the danger of everybody becoming a Buddhist in the near future.

We will each follow our own convictions of what is and what isn't Buddhist practice. Due to the real and "bloody" facts that are Japanese history however, I do feel we should remedy the fact that they "softened" their interpretation of e.g. the killing precepts to a point where Buddhist philosophy and practise were abused as a tool to deliver even more suffering in a very effective way.


As I said before, I am just sharing my cheap two novice cents worth of perspective, feel free to do disagree.
To each his/her own.


Gassho,

Hans

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

Hans,

Let me rephrase and make clear my intention.
I think it is important not to abuse the precepts by turning them into a vehicle for harming another.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Self-Defense

So, the precepts (some of them considered grave for a reason) along with I suppose the eightfold path, is for those who are "less enlightened"? I am not sure I agree with this. Anyway, it may be as it may with that, but a samurai who used his sword for killing could hardly be called enlightened. Not even by a stretch. You can't turn the dharma on and off, and avoid vipaka for some actions, and not for others. That, if anything, goes against the spirit of the precepts.

Why would a bodhisattva need to have the Precepts if their actions were in concert with the Precepts through their understanding of the Dharma? They are grave precepts for a reason and that reason is that the less enlightened among the sangha needed to know that to break those precepts meant expulsion from the sangha.

At any rate, I agree with you on the point of the samurai. It is important to remember that the samurai class existed prior to the wide acceptance of Buddhism in Japan. Aitken Roshi mentioned something in Taking the Path of Zen regarding a monk who gave a samurai the advice of there is "No killing, no one to kill, and no one killing" and speaking of how his vow to save all beings must not have included a person who he considered to be an enemy. The samurai were a product of their culture, which to me seems in conflict with Buddhist faith, but necessary for them because this saha world is imperfect.

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

So, the precepts (some of them considered grave for a reason) along with I suppose the eightfold path, is for those who are "less enlightened"? I am not sure I agree with this. Anyway, it may be as it may with that, but a samurai who used his sword for killing could hardly be called enlightened. Not even by a stretch.

I recall an expression from an old master that went something along the lines that “the sword is not to take life, but to give it.”
I think that we should avoid using the precepts as a measure to judge the practice of another, but they are important for our own practice.
Killing, is not limited to the body, but words and ideas kill as well. And when we get into a judgmental mindset of “he did this so he is not practicing the Buddha way”, that is killing too.
And to say whether one is enlightened or not just seems irrelevant to me. It seems to fixed.
Unenlightened people engage in enlightened activity and are spontaneously transformed into Buddhas.
Enlightened people engage in unenlightened activity and are manifesting the form of animals, hungry ghosts and demons.

The problem with this is that with this kind of attitude, Buddhadharma will turn into anything goes. Anything and anyone can claim to transmit the true Buddhadharma, and no one can say anything about it. Does it matter for my own experience? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have discussions about for example the precepts, and what they really mean and signify. One thing they are not, and that is empty words.

Even the Buddha by the way, told us that it is good to "periodically [reflect] on the failings of others". He continued with where he believed we were heading if we falsely claimed to represent the dharma. We would be "headed for a state of deprivation, headed for hell, there to stay for an eon, incurable" (about his cousin Devadatta in Devadatta sutta). Is that judging, or it a realist's description of what actually constitutes skillful and unskillful behaviour and what they will lead to? There is nothing judgmental about this, only the facts laid out in plain view.

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

Why would a bodhisattva need to have the Precepts if their actions were in concert with the Precepts through their understanding of the Dharma? They are grave precepts for a reason and that reason is that the less enlightened among the sa?gha needed to know that to break those precepts meant expulsion from the sa?gha .

If your actions are in concert with the precepts, then you do have and follow the precepts. If you call this having or not having or following or not following is purely semantic, isn't it? Bodhisattvas still recite them, live by them, follow them, observe them. This is not something that I am making up myself, you can check the Brahma net s?tra, the s?tra that gave us these precepts in the first place, and you see the Buddha mentioning it.

Yes, the grave precepts I'm sure meant expulsion fro the Sa?gha, but they are called grave because the karmic consequences of not following them is severe. You will be reborn in the three lower realms without possibility for a long time to again hear the dharma. Again, it is in the Brahma net s?tra.

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

So, the precepts (some of them considered grave for a reason) along with I suppose the eightfold path, is for those who are "less enlightened"? I am not sure I agree with this. Anyway, it may be as it may with that, but a samurai who used his sword for killing could hardly be called enlightened. Not even by a stretch.

I recall an expression from an old master that went something along the lines that “the sword is not to take life, but to give it.”
I think that we should avoid using the precepts as a measure to judge the practice of another, but they are important for our own practice.
Killing, is not limited to the body, but words and ideas kill as well. And when we get into a judgmental mindset of “he did this so he is not practicing the Buddha way”, that is killing too.
And to say whether one is enlightened or not just seems irrelevant to me. It seems to fixed.
Unenlightened people engage in enlightened activity and are spontaneously transformed into Buddhas.
Enlightened people engage in unenlightened activity and are manifesting the form of animals, hungry ghosts and demons.

The problem with this is that with this kind of attitude, Buddhadharma will turn into anything goes. Anything and anyone can claim to transmit the true Buddhadharma, and no one can say anything about it. Does it matter for my own experience? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have discussions about for example the precepts, and what they really mean and signify. One thing they are not, and that is empty words.

Even the Buddha by the way, told us that it is good to "periodically [reflect] on the failings of others". He continued with where he believed we were heading if we falsely claimed to represent the dharma. We would be "headed for a state of deprivation, headed for hell, there to stay for an eon, incurable" (about his cousin Devadatta in Devadatta sutta). Is that judging, or it a realist's description of what actually constitutes skillful and unskillful behaviour and what they will lead to? There is nothing judgmental about this, only the facts laid out in plain view.

So if I understand you, you think that the Buddha Dharma occupies a fixed position?

I think that the everything and everyone does transmit the Buddha Dharma, to say otherwise is an inverted view.
And trying to fix the Buddha Dharma to one Dharma position would be like trying to pin the Mississippi river in place with a single nail.

I agree we should have discussions about the precepts, but as they affect our own intimate practice, once again, not as a bar to measure ourselves against others. That just does not flow with the Buddha Dharma as I have heard it at all.

Keep in mind that the precepts are not the same as the regulations for monasteries, they are regulations for training ones self.

There is a big difference. Some Mahayana monks follow the old rules but mostly they follow the monastic instructions, now those rules are for the regulation of the community and a little different. Just like the ten commandments are different from the Code of Hamurabi.

Oh, by the way the sutra that you allude to is from the lesser vehicle, there is nothing like that in the Mahayana.
Since your brought up scripture though, this comes from the Mahayana Mahaperinirvana Sutra, and is exactly about how we take and keep the precepts:

A bodhisattva should guard and protect beings and view them as one would ones only son and abide in great loving kindness, great compassion, great joy, and great equanimity. Also he should impart the precept of non-harming to them and teach them to practice all good things. Also he must let all beings abide peacefully in the five moral precepts and the 10 good deeds. Furthermore, he will get into such realms as hell, hungry ghost, animal, and asura, and free these beings from where they are suffering, Emancipate those not yet emancipated, pass over those who have not yet gained the other shore, give Nirvana to those who have not yet attained it, and console all who live in fear.


Excerpt from chapter four of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra

[Rev R]

Re: Self-Defense

anista is correct, he is referring to the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhi ... sframe.htm

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

anista is correct, he is referring to the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhi ... sframe.htm

Rev R,
I was not referring to the Brama Net Sutra, but where he referred to the Devadatta sutta.

[Rev R]

Re: Self-Defense

oh...my apologies. back to work for me then. carry on

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

anista is correct, he is referring to the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhi ... sframe.htm

Rev R,
I was not referring to the Brama Net Sutra, but where he referred to the Devadatta sutta.

It might be important to point out, that in the Mahayana the Buddha only ever encourages us to act with nobility.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Self-Defense

anista is correct, he is referring to the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhi ... sframe.htm

Rev R,
I was not referring to the Brama Net Sutra, but where he referred to the Devadatta sutta.

It might be important to point out, that in the Mahayana the Buddha only ever encourages us to act with nobility.

Just as important to remember that the suttras were written years after Buddha's death. I like the way Aitken Roshi said it, "the life of the Buddha is our guide. If it can be proven that the Buddha never lived, then the myth of his life is our guide."

I can't speak to what the Buddha spoke 2500 years ago, or how many bodhisattvas chanted the Bhrama Net Suttra, all I know is that cats and white oxen actually exist on this earth.

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

Just as important to remember that the suttras were written years after Buddha's death. I like the way Aitken Roshi said it, "the life of the Buddha is our guide. If it can be proven that the Buddha never lived, then the myth of his life is our guide."

I can't speak to what the Buddha spoke 2500 years ago, or how many bodhisattvas chanted the Bhrama Net Suttra, all I know is that cats and white oxen actually exist on this earth.

Well said, well said! The Buddha is our guide, however there are (at least) three paths (that are all one) The Sravakayana (sometimes called Theravada or Hinnayana) the Mahayana (Zen and Pure Land Schools) and the Vajrayana (Tantric schools or "thunderbolt" vehicle) each having their own texts. If I were studying and practicing the Sravakayana I would not reference Mahayana texts any more than I would reference a field guide to alaska while hiking here in Okinawa. They are all part of the one vehicle, but with different means whereby, and (as I have learned the hard way) it may become important along the way to understand there is a reason for the three classifications. Not sure if that was clear, let me know.

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

Well said, well said! The Buddha is our guide, however there are (at least) three paths (that are all one) The Sravakayana (sometimes called Theravada or Hinnayana) the Mahayana (Zen and Pure Land Schools) and the Vajrayana (Tantric schools or "thunderbolt" vehicle) each having their own texts. If I were studying and practicing the Sravakayana I would not reference Mahayana texts any more than I would reference a field guide to alaska while hiking here in Okinawa. They are all part of the one vehicle, but with different means whereby, and (as I have learned the hard way) it may become important along the way to understand there is a reason for the three classifications. Not sure if that was clear, let me know.

Well Fuken, I don't know where to start. Maybe I miss something in this response, please let me know if that's the case. In your previous post you said that we should according to Mah?y?na act with nobility, yet you call other parts for "lesser"? Is that nobility? Yes, it could be! You are calling things as they are, aren't you?

The Therav?da and H?nay?na are not the same thing. H?nay?na consists of all the early school, and perhaps most notably the Vaibh??ika-Sarv?stiv?da. Therav?da is but one of the early schools.

In Mah?y?na, the pali canon are studied and revered. Since the Mah?y?na s?tras are often written as teachings succeding the pali canon, it is wise to first have an understanding of the suttas. So, reference to pali suttas is indeed valid. If you compare the difference between suttas and s?tras to field guides of Alaska and Okinawa, well, you clearly have a strong opinion of what constitutes lesser and greater, and seems to cherish this dualism. I do not, even though I certainly fall into this thinking myself!

But, if you want, I can stop quoting suttas and move on to s?tras! All the more fun!

the La?k?vat?ra s?tra is devoting numerous chapters to the "Erroneous views" of philosophers, and brahmans, "like simple-minded ones they are". Most notably those who have a wrong view of what constitutes dharma. In Vimalak?rtinirde?a s?tra, a clearly polemical work against the h?nay?nist view, Vimalak?rti makes fun of the h?nay?nists personified by ??riputra, with all their petty rules that hinders them from seeing the true dharma.

It does not matter if it is a sutta or s?tra, there is always the need to call things what they are.

Oh, and that quote from Mah?parinirv??a s?tra I agree with completely! It says the same thing I say about the precepts.

Last but not least, yes, buddhadharma points out ultimate reality. Ultimate reality exists not depending on your view of it. Smaller rules for a samgha can be replaced, the graver ones (no matter if it's sa?gha rules or precepts) can not.

Let me ask you a question: how much are you willing to reinterpret the precepts? Until they become what you have always wanted them to be? When they fit with your current line of work, lifestyle, actions? Where do you draw the line?

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

Just as important to remember that the suttras were written years after Buddha's death. I like the way Aitken Roshi said it, "the life of the Buddha is our guide. If it can be proven that the Buddha never lived, then the myth of his life is our guide."

I can't speak to what the Buddha spoke 2500 years ago, or how many bodhisattvas chanted the Bhrama Net Suttra, all I know is that cats and white oxen actually exist on this earth.

It makes no difference when they were written. They have been tested and verified by generations of practitioners. And that's where faith comes in, for you to take in what they say, and then test it yourself. Otherwise, we could just reject the whole corpus of texts, because "we don't know".