If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
For what it is worth.. my experience with keeping the precepts developed within a lay Theravadin sangha, and was not considered out of line or radical by either the laity or the ordained sangha. It was the Forest Sangha tradition... longtime practitioners... good old friends. Solid Buddhists. Theravada is not a monolith either...
Thank you for the great posts. Although I can't say that I will necessarily see my practice in the same terms I hope you guys can accept a stodgy Theravadin into the fold. Metta.
Gassho,
Mike
Let me add that not all Mahayana folks see or undertake the Precepts in the same way either. The life of celibate monks and "at home" folks is not the same. Dogen, for example, ran a pretty tight ship for his monks in a monastic setting. A bit "eye of the beholder" and " different degrees for different folks and situations".?
Thank you for the great posts. Although I can't say that I will necessarily see my practice in the same terms I hope you guys can accept a stodgy Theravadin into the fold. Metta.
I feel that the beauty of the precepts is bending our lives to fit them rather than the other way around. There's freedom of desires and then there's freedom from desires which is the path that the Buddhas and the enlightened masters have taught.
Hi KB,
This is actually an important historical point. Theravadan Buddhism (which, by the way, folks sometimes think of as the "older" or "original" Buddhism, but which is more of a parallel path also developing in its own ways and flavor over the centuries) has tended to emphasize "freedom from desires" by being rid of, extinguishing or forsaking many passions, drives and desires.
Mahayana Buddhism, with its vision of "emptiness as precisely form, nirvana dancing right as samsara" has tended to see that "freedom from desire" can occur right in and as a world of desires. Of course, Mahayanists tend to believe in moderating desires, holding them lightly and without clutching attachment, and abandoning excess or negative and harmful desires such as for violence, misuse of sexuality in a hurtful way, greed for excess materialistic things, and the like. However, that being said, one can find non-attachment and "total, complete freedom from all desire" right in the heart of/in/as/though-and-through moderate, healthy, ordinary human desires themselves. Having some ordinary and healthy, balanced human "desire" and ALSO "complete lack of desire" are -not- an "either/or" contradiction, but can be both at once, as one ... shining through.
The Lotus Blossoms In The Mud, this muddy world is nourishment and life for the Lotus.
Sometimes, when it comes to excess or harmful things, we definitely bend our life to the Precepts, and the Precepts stand as firm and fixed sentinels of Right Conduct. At other times, amid the vagaries of life, the Precepts show great space. Someone once compared them to a fence around a cow field, keeping the cows from going too far astray so that they do not wander onto a busy highway or off a cliff, yet allowing the cows all spacious freedom of movement and choice within.
I feel that the beauty of the precepts is bending our lives to fit them rather than the other way around. There's freedom of desires and then there's freedom from desires which is the path that the Buddhas and the enlightened masters have taught.
I cannot know why someone might keep or break a precept, and am in no position to judge. People do their best. It is presumptuous to see that in terms of bending precepts to fit lives... presumptuous is putting it lightly in fact.
Kojip,
My apologies if I have offended you or anyone else here as that was never my intention. I must admit that I find your assertion that I am judging anyone strange because I was simply starting my own personal (if unpopular) position. May you be well!
Mike
I said I can't judge. What is presumptuous is to say that breaking a precept is only about bending it to suit self-centered desire. That is not my experience.
I feel that the beauty of the precepts is bending our lives to fit them rather than the other way around. There's freedom of desires and then there's freedom from desires which is the path that the Buddhas and the enlightened masters have taught.
I cannot know why someone might keep or break a precept, and am in no position to judge. People do their best. It is presumptuous to see that in terms of bending precepts to fit lives... presumptuous is putting it lightly in fact.
Kojip,
My apologies if I have offended you or anyone else here as that was never my intention. I must admit that I find your assertion that I am judging anyone strange because I was simply starting my own personal (if unpopular) position. May you be well!
I feel that the beauty of the precepts is bending our lives to fit them rather than the other way around. There's freedom of desires and then there's freedom from desires which is the path that the Buddhas and the enlightened masters have taught.
I cannot know why someone might keep or break a precept, and am in no position to judge. People do their best. It is presumptuous to see that in terms of bending precepts to fit lives... presumptuous is putting it lightly in fact.
I'm not saying that we should bend the precepts to fit our lives. I'm saying that the precepts aren't black and white. Just because a precept says refrain from lying, doesn't mean there are times when the precept can't be broken. Of course, it's really just common sense. I mean in Hagen's book Buddhism: Plain and Simple, he brings up the point about a Nazi officer asking someone if they know where Jews are. They happen to be harboring Jews, so if they don't tell the Nazi officer where they are they are breaking the precepts. Oh no, what to do? Of course I'm being sarcastic, but sometimes a precept has to be broken in order to preserve the nature of the precepts, which are to live a balanced and compassionate life.
I feel that the beauty of the precepts is bending our lives to fit them rather than the other way around. There's freedom of desires and then there's freedom from desires which is the path that the Buddhas and the enlightened masters have taught.
I have taken the precepts, and do my best to keep them. But the keeping of precepts depends. I can never say never. It is situational.
I wholeheartedly agree. Life is not black and white, and we cannot live a life in a natural way by following a strict set of unchanging rules. That is very problematic. We start following a religion to focus on adherence to something rather than practicing a religion out of true wisdom. I'm not saying the precepts aren't good, but they are not meant to be accepted and adhered to exactly.
Leave a comment: