Five Gifts: how does one reconcile? (Buddhists and teachers, help this novice out!)

[Jamshyd]

I have spent the entirety of my tiny life ignorantly knowing of the Buddha's basic teachings, but not knowing them. Not even upon hearing them every single day in the Thai schools at which I taught (ironically). Not even in visiting Sarnath on a whim, as part of my short tour of India.

Little did I know that, in a single moment about four months ago, I would suddenly realize the need to relearn all that I imagined I already knew, thanks to randomly listening to this particular chanting of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (audio file). As irony (again) would have it, this is the Buddha's very first sermon, which he gave at Sarnath... and it is chanted by Thai monks!

But this feather-fluffing is mostly irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I just wanted an excuse to share the abovementioned recording .

TL;DR - I am not what you'd call a "convert", rather I am in the process of integrating this most-beautiful words into the fabric of my being (and lack thereof).

I'd like to ask everyone here what do you think of the Buddhist version of the "commandments" (as we know them) that seem to be a salient feature of most religions. I implore you to pay attention to the wording (or the translation...), because this is what got me wondering in the first place. The Buddha puts these precepts in a much more eloquent manner than Moses or Muhammad or whoever could ever put them.

"There are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests. Which five?

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. ...

"Furthermore, abandoning taking what is not given (stealing), the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking what is not given. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the second gift...

"Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the third gift...

"Furthermore, abandoning lying, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from lying. In doing so....

"Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the fifth gift,..."

In the context that he puts them, which essentially is the same as all other commandment-giving prophets I realize, but literally it draws a picture of a society built on cooperative co-existence, where less theft leads to exponentially-less theft, etc.

If you were a monk, how would you reconcile these teachings with modern life?

 

[Raw Evil]

First precept (killing):
It's relatively easy to avoid killing directly. Brush off insects instead of swatting them; capture a spider in a plastic container and move it outside instead of spraying it; that sort of thing. Indirectly, it means eating a vegetarian diet, and avoiding purchasing any product which requires killing in its manufacture.

Second (stealing):
The most obvious route here is to not be a mugger, burglar, or thief; however this could conceptually be extended to expecting (taking) forgiveness for a course of action which is obviously a dick move, or other such things.

Third (sexual misconduct):
Given the Buddha's relatively nonpartisan stance on most issues, and that most attitudes toward morality in sexual conduct are culturally defined, my attitude is basically that, providing you're not a rapist, you're clear.

Fourth (lying):
This one gets tricky. Being honest to a fault is rarely an appreciated character trait, thus behaving as such will make you unpopular rather rapidly. Personally I'd like to see a world where people would just straight up explain what's going on instead of hiding behind all the games their egos insist on playing with each other, but since I don't see that happening too soon, I resort to a preference for truth wherever it will not cause major conflict (unless such conflict is necessary - a double judgement call).

Fifth (intoxicants):
Hmm... Not sure at all about this one. Personally, I'd like to rationalize this as "since the primary intoxicant in that context is alcohol, that's probably what the Buddha meant", but that seems too convenient an excuse to keep taking acid to be a likely interpretation, at least in my case. If perhaps it means to maintain self-control and not allow oneself to fall off the deep end, then one could conceivably live a lifestyle inclusive of drug use. Of course, Gautama could simply have been one of the "Just Say No" crowd.

Edit: turns out, the original Fifth Precept in both Theravada and Mahayana texts mentions alcohol specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

I'm not by any means a practicing Buddhist - I meditate from time to time, but have never visited a temple as anything other than a tourist. I have read a large chunk of the information available on Wikipedia, but never read the Suttas.

 

[ocean]

I don't mean to derail this thread, and UA me if it's an issue-
But I always get tripped up with Buddhism when it comes to "Buddha" b/c aren't there many Buddhas? Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha (he is enlightened, yeah? Why is he considered just a teacher but worshipped as a Buddha??)
What you quoted above, is that a universal thing for Buddhism, meaning it goes with ALL types of Buddhism? I of course think that its great and of course necessary to set the boundaries and guidelines for ppl to follow........I'm curious.


I read through (never front to back for some reason) books on Buddhism (different types) or books by the Dalai Lama and I love them......but I always feel like I'm not grasping it completely and get tripped up by wondering WHO is Buddha exactly? (besides the Enlightened One)

 

[High Yogi]

Those precepts are a way of life for anyone looking to advance forward spiritually. These are the same precepts Mikao Usui gives in his teachings of Reiki and he stresses that the precepts are more important than the actual energy practices of Reiki, for continuation of these precepts will almost surely lead one to enlightenment.

 

[yougene]

If you were a monk, how would you reconcile these teachings with modern life?

The idea of a Sangha supporting monks doesn't work well in the west. The pillars of Buddhism(Buddha, Sangha, Dharma) are founded within a cultural context that don't have a 1 to 1 correspondence to western context. Being a freegan is pretty close to receiving alms from a community though.

 

[Jamshyd]

I don't mean to derail this thread, and UA me if it's an issue-
But I always get tripped up with Buddhism when it comes to "Buddha" b/c aren't there many Buddhas? Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha (he is enlightened, yeah? Why is he considered just a teacher but worshipped as a Buddha??)
What you quoted above, is that a universal thing for Buddhism, meaning it goes with ALL types of Buddhism? I of course think that its great and of course necessary to set the boundaries and guidelines for ppl to follow........I'm curious.


I read through (never front to back for some reason) books on Buddhism (different types) or books by the Dalai Lama and I love them......but I always feel like I'm not grasping it completely and get tripped up by wondering WHO is Buddha exactly? (besides the Enlightened One)

No worries .

To simplify things: Today there are really two Buddhisms that can be thought of as being as different from each other as Judaism and Christianity, despite sharing common origin and even some common scripture. These two are Theravada and Mahayana. The latter is further subdivided into "East Asian" (the several things, mostly chinese in origin, that constitute mainstream Mahayana), Tibetan and Zen - although some consider the latter two to be branches all by themselves. Theravada, on the other hand, is very clear on the fact that there was only one Buddha ever (Gautama), that he was a historical person (a prince in what was Maghada, now Bihar, in India, in the 5th Century BCE), and that he achieved enlightenment in this life (according to his followers); the purpose of the whole tradition being to follow his example and become enlightened oneself in this life, so as to escape the cycle of rebirth.

It is in the Mahayana schools that you find things like Amitabha and Avalokitesvara and Bishomonten, and in those shcools you find that the religions are based on the teachings of beings (human or otherwise) that have little to do with the original Buddha himself (textually). All of this I find very fascinating and beautiful, but I am more interested here in the very basic, fundamental, first teachings which these schools appear to have all but forgotten. The Dalai Lama, wise as he is, belongs to this half.

Theravada, on the other hand, follows the teachings I'm talking about (the Pali Canon) and writings that have a very clear connection to it, all in Pali.

I think by now it is clear that I am very much speaking of Theravada, although admittedly I have not clarified this in my OP .

The idea of a Sangha supporting monks doesn't work well in the west. The pillars of Buddhism(Buddha, Sangha, Dharma) are founded within a cultural context that don't have a 1 to 1 correspondence to western context. Being a freegan is pretty close to receiving alms from a community though.

That is percisely why I used the word "reconcile" instead of, say, "follow dogmatically" .

After all, I'd hazard that reconciliation would be something I imagine the Buddha would approve of, judging by a running theme in his teaching (the majjima patipada, or middle-way) .

 

[yougene]

The five gifts in a Theravada context are sort of a contradiction. The purpose of Theravada is absolute freedom from this world, but ethical behavior is about our responsibility/connection to this world. As the saying goes, "with great freedom comes great responsibility". Getting meat that someone else killed lives up to the word but not the spirit of the text. Being a vegetarian could be the right thing to do, but wouldn't also being a butcher? If there is a demand for meat, is it not in the spirit of Buddhism to give butchered animals a compassionate life and killing?

To me Buddhism isn't about seeking escape from the world. It's about finding a place of peace from which we may face it's suffering.

 

[socko]

First precept (killing):
It's relatively easy to avoid killing directly. Brush off insects instead of swatting them; capture a spider in a plastic container and move it outside instead of spraying it; that sort of thing. Indirectly, it means eating a vegetarian diet, and avoiding purchasing any product which requires killing in its manufacture.

Second (stealing):
The most obvious route here is to not be a mugger, burglar, or thief; however this could conceptually be extended to expecting (taking) forgiveness for a course of action which is obviously a dick move, or other such things.

Third (sexual misconduct):
Given the Buddha's relatively nonpartisan stance on most issues, and that most attitudes toward morality in sexual conduct are culturally defined, my attitude is basically that, providing you're not a rapist, you're clear.

Fourth (lying):
This one gets tricky. Being honest to a fault is rarely an appreciated character trait, thus behaving as such will make you unpopular rather rapidly. Personally I'd like to see a world where people would just straight up explain what's going on instead of hiding behind all the games their egos insist on playing with each other, but since I don't see that happening too soon, I resort to a preference for truth wherever it will not cause major conflict (unless such conflict is necessary - a double judgement call).

Fifth (intoxicants):
Hmm... Not sure at all about this one. Personally, I'd like to rationalize this as "since the primary intoxicant in that context is alcohol, that's probably what the Buddha meant", but that seems too convenient an excuse to keep taking acid to be a likely interpretation, at least in my case. If perhaps it means to maintain self-control and not allow oneself to fall off the deep end, then one could conceivably live a lifestyle inclusive of drug use. Of course, Gautama could simply have been one of the "Just Say No" crowd.

Edit: turns out, the original Fifth Precept in both Theravada and Mahayana texts mentions alcohol specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

I'm not by any means a practicing Buddhist - I meditate from time to time, but have never visited a temple as anything other than a tourist. I have read a large chunk of the information available on Wikipedia, but never read the Suttas.

My take on these precepts is, to sum it up in one sentence: Don't be an asshole.
I'm not trying to be flippant. For many of us, that's easier said than done. It takes a lot of effort and contemplation and is made easier by incorporating these precepts into your life. If you can do it, you will be a happier person.

I would like to add that I agree with you (Jam) that these precepts are not meant to be taken dogmatically. No angry Abrahamic deity enforces these precepts. It is up to you whether or not you follow them and how deeply you follow them if you decide to. Anyway, this is the gist of how they were presented at the non-denominational Mahayana Buddhist church that I attended for several years.

 

[HigherAwareness]

I am not a buddhist but I hope this helps. My only advice pertains to the 3rd (sex). Just be sexually responsible, In short that means having respect for your partners such as using honesty and practicing safe sex (when needed) Also do not exploit or contribute to the sexual exploitation of people.

 

[Cthulhu]

If you were a monk, how would you reconcile these teachings with modern life?

I'm not sure why you ask about "modern" life, specifically - haven't these forms of misconduct been widespread throughout mankind's history? I think that no matter what time period you live in, the process of following these teachings is the same - constant vigilance, regular meditation, and the necessary renunciation of personal desires.

More fundamentally, these "sins" are all expressions of the inborn tendency to grasp at things as real, and to make an identity out of them. It's not that any of these acts are inherently negative - but in the vast majority of cases they are, which is why they make good guidelines.


Personally, I find the Theravada traditions to be lacking in the compassionate side of Buddhism. They tend to emphasize the individual and his/her own salvation, which can lead the practitioner to become very protective of his/her "territory." Whereas the Mahayana tradition promotes a dissolution of one's own territory. Therefore instead of merely abstaining from stealing, for example, one should strive to give as much as possible - one of the perfections of wisdom, generosity.

 

[Jamshyd]

I'm not sure why you ask about "modern" life, specifically - haven't these forms of misconduct been widespread throughout mankind's history?

I ask about modernity percisely because you call these things misconduct. As a matter of fact, drugs, sex, and bloodshed (at least) have been commonplace and even legally-sanctioned in most places in pre-modern times.

I think that no matter what time period you live in, the process of following these teachings is the same - constant vigilance, regular meditation, and the necessary renunciation of personal desires.

Is that all there is to it though?

Does posting on drug forum count as "misconduct"?

Does stealing from corporate entities count as "misconduct"?

More fundamentally, these "sins" are all expressions of the inborn tendency to grasp at things as real, and to make an identity out of them. It's not that any of these acts are inherently negative - but in the vast majority of cases they are, which is why they make good guidelines.

I agree with you absolutely, though for the same of this thread I'll argue that I'm not buying it.

Personally, I find the Theravada traditions to be lacking in the compassionate side of Buddhism.

Although Theravada is the only LIVING branch to follow the Pali texts, said text had been alive and well with Mahayana before it left India (generally-speaking).

They tend to emphasize the individual and his/her own salvation, which can lead the practitioner to become very protective of his/her "territory."

As do the Mahayanists, if history tells us anything (I point you to the Mongols and the Japanese as two examples).

Whereas the Mahayana tradition promotes a dissolution of one's own territory.

That, in fact, is only when they are following the original teachings closely

Therefore instead of merely abstaining from stealing, for example, one should strive to give as much as possible

Wait, wasn't there this stuff about it being NEITHER this NOR that? haha.

As to generosity, isn't that the IMPLIED theme in the teachings in the OP? Why else would "not stealing" be called "a gift"?

(for the record, I am not at all partial to Theravada - rather my current focus is on the very, very basic, fundamental teachings of the historical buddha out of which ALL other evolved). I guess, once again, I find myself stuck on a medieval stage of a discipline - as I do with Islamic thought.. hehe.

 

[Cthulhu]

Does posting on drug forum count as "misconduct"?

I think it would for a Buddhist who has taken vows relating to intoxicants (because those vows are a promise to one's self and to one's teacher). However, for non Buddhists or even for one who has chosen a spiritual path, perhaps he/she just enjoys the company, intellligence, and open-mindedness of the fellow posters on said drug forum

To continue the discussion about these "commandments," I would say they are very different from, say, Moses' Ten Commandments which were handed down from God, written on stone, unalterable. Buddhist ethics are as relativistic as you can get, and they are subservient to the Four Noble Truths, the path to enlightenment, and compassion/love in general. By subservient, I mean that they do not exist by themselves in any eternal, inherent way (the way Moses' do), but are part of the infinitely diverse situations presented on the path to enlightenment.