4 ms·

Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.

by sandal 16y ago

michael_dorfman 16y ago
My point was, I'd rather not provide the citations, but I could. I'm just finishing up an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and as part of a Buddhist Ethics course I recently did some work on the scriptural bases of the precepts in five different canons, but I really didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details. I was hoping that you'd be willing to just take my word on the issue.
- sandal 16y ago
  This is quite interesting and I think that rather than saying 'trust me', by providing a bit of background it makes it much more likely for us to have a productive conversation. But for what it's worth, while I don't have an academic background in it, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. Let me guess: Thich Nhat Hanh? Personally, I find the notion of "precepts as guidelines and not laws" to be attractive; I suppose a lot of Westerners do, too. Unfortunately, this is a very modern notion-- if you look at the (pre-20th-Century) literature, you'll find that the precepts are treated as laws, and that they go into explicit detail, and leave very little to personal judgment. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. I disagree (as you might guess.) I'd argue that "taking that which is not given" is, literally, theft, and vice versa. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I've never come across that reading of the precepts; usually, the prohibition on lying is taken to include non-skillful speech. That is quite a figurative reading, indeed. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now. I'd suggest that in your attempt to separate the words and the intent, you run the risk of redefining words to mean what you wish them to mean. You'd like to make a distinction between copyright infringement and theft, based on a physical analogy; but, as I've pointed out, the notion of theft has always been broader than that. The intent is clear: you're not permitted to take that which is not given-- whether it is a physical object, or a service, or a copyrighted work.
    - sandal 16y ago
      Please show some examples of pre-20th-century Buddhist literature that goes into very explicit detail about the precepts leaving little to personal judgment. I've been reading from modern teachers, because Buddhism is a living religion, not something that was laid down in absolute terms centuries ago. But I have read a bit of the older texts through English translation and just have not seen the sort of strictness that you are implying. Providing some specific excerpts would really help move this discussion forward.
      - michael_dorfman 16y ago
        I'll be happy to. I'm at home now, and my texts are at my office, but I can email some references to you tomorrow, if your contact details are on your HN profile. In the mean-time, the Wikipedia page on the Patimokkha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha) lists the monastic precepts for the Theravada tradition; even in schematic form, you can see that they are quite detailed. When you add on Buddhaghosa's commentary in the Kankhavitarani, things get quite detailed indeed.
        sandal 16y ago
        From everything I've read and heard from teachers, the practices for monastics are extremely finely detailed specifically because it forces those who go that route to be mindful of what they are doing each and every moment. But this is a voluntary practice and has to do with amplifying some basic foundational ideas of non-harming and mindfulness so that you can see them in minute details. Nowhere have I ever seen Buddhist teachings that imply that it should be the goal of the laypeople to take on the monastic precepts. Even throughout history the vast majority of Buddhist practitioners were bound only by the 5 lay precepts. Again, I think that if you're a non-practitioner, from the outside it might seem strange that such things are meant as 'trainings' and not 'rules'. That having been said, there are certainly cases where these rules are taken very seriously. You can read the book 'Turtle Feet' for a contemporary look into how political and bureaucratic the Tibetan monastics can be. What I've been told is that the Buddha taught in many, many different ways depending on his intended audience. So when he was speaking to plain, common folks, he gave them simple instructions to follow. For some devotional types, he constructed elaborate and complex rituals to help with practice. I think that you may be studying the more complex end of things and missing some of the less academic teachings. I think that there are two phenomena here that we should distinguish with modern Buddhism. One is the sort of new-age culture that has taken the words of Thich Nhat Hahn and the Dalai Lama and turned Buddhism into a sort of 'feel good' spirituality that isn't very deep. This isn't the fault of the teacher, but of a mass audience hungry for some good feelings. But then there are also people like Jack Kornfield, Steve Armstrong, Larry Rosenberg, Henepola Gunaratana, Pema Chodron, and many others who have taken a more westernized, but still faithful way of representing Buddhism in the West. This is again speaking from the viewpoint of a non-academic, but I'm also not just a 'true believer', so I've done enough of my homework to feel like you're making too strong of a statement about what precepts are meant to express.

Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.

by sandal 16y ago

Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

My point was, I'd rather not provide the citations, but I could. I'm just finishing up an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and as part of a Buddhist Ethics course I recently did some work on the scriptural bases of the precepts in five different canons, but I really didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details. I was hoping that you'd be willing to just take my word on the issue.

sandal 16y ago
This is quite interesting and I think that rather than saying 'trust me', by providing a bit of background it makes it much more likely for us to have a productive conversation. But for what it's worth, while I don't have an academic background in it, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. Let me guess: Thich Nhat Hanh? Personally, I find the notion of "precepts as guidelines and not laws" to be attractive; I suppose a lot of Westerners do, too. Unfortunately, this is a very modern notion-- if you look at the (pre-20th-Century) literature, you'll find that the precepts are treated as laws, and that they go into explicit detail, and leave very little to personal judgment. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. I disagree (as you might guess.) I'd argue that "taking that which is not given" is, literally, theft, and vice versa. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I've never come across that reading of the precepts; usually, the prohibition on lying is taken to include non-skillful speech. That is quite a figurative reading, indeed. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now. I'd suggest that in your attempt to separate the words and the intent, you run the risk of redefining words to mean what you wish them to mean. You'd like to make a distinction between copyright infringement and theft, based on a physical analogy; but, as I've pointed out, the notion of theft has always been broader than that. The intent is clear: you're not permitted to take that which is not given-- whether it is a physical object, or a service, or a copyrighted work.
  - sandal 16y ago
    Please show some examples of pre-20th-century Buddhist literature that goes into very explicit detail about the precepts leaving little to personal judgment. I've been reading from modern teachers, because Buddhism is a living religion, not something that was laid down in absolute terms centuries ago. But I have read a bit of the older texts through English translation and just have not seen the sort of strictness that you are implying. Providing some specific excerpts would really help move this discussion forward.
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      I'll be happy to. I'm at home now, and my texts are at my office, but I can email some references to you tomorrow, if your contact details are on your HN profile. In the mean-time, the Wikipedia page on the Patimokkha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha) lists the monastic precepts for the Theravada tradition; even in schematic form, you can see that they are quite detailed. When you add on Buddhaghosa's commentary in the Kankhavitarani, things get quite detailed indeed.
      - sandal 16y ago
        From everything I've read and heard from teachers, the practices for monastics are extremely finely detailed specifically because it forces those who go that route to be mindful of what they are doing each and every moment. But this is a voluntary practice and has to do with amplifying some basic foundational ideas of non-harming and mindfulness so that you can see them in minute details. Nowhere have I ever seen Buddhist teachings that imply that it should be the goal of the laypeople to take on the monastic precepts. Even throughout history the vast majority of Buddhist practitioners were bound only by the 5 lay precepts. Again, I think that if you're a non-practitioner, from the outside it might seem strange that such things are meant as 'trainings' and not 'rules'. That having been said, there are certainly cases where these rules are taken very seriously. You can read the book 'Turtle Feet' for a contemporary look into how political and bureaucratic the Tibetan monastics can be. What I've been told is that the Buddha taught in many, many different ways depending on his intended audience. So when he was speaking to plain, common folks, he gave them simple instructions to follow. For some devotional types, he constructed elaborate and complex rituals to help with practice. I think that you may be studying the more complex end of things and missing some of the less academic teachings. I think that there are two phenomena here that we should distinguish with modern Buddhism. One is the sort of new-age culture that has taken the words of Thich Nhat Hahn and the Dalai Lama and turned Buddhism into a sort of 'feel good' spirituality that isn't very deep. This isn't the fault of the teacher, but of a mass audience hungry for some good feelings. But then there are also people like Jack Kornfield, Steve Armstrong, Larry Rosenberg, Henepola Gunaratana, Pema Chodron, and many others who have taken a more westernized, but still faithful way of representing Buddhism in the West. This is again speaking from the viewpoint of a non-academic, but I'm also not just a 'true believer', so I've done enough of my homework to feel like you're making too strong of a statement about what precepts are meant to express.