5 Precepts

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby Pero » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:43 pm

SonamZangpo wrote:Yes. I believe it was dalai lama who spoke on it. It was some master. Saying that masturbation, you have to think about someone, so you are essentially mentally raping them, unless you give them your explicit permission. Someone then asked about pornography, since the actors would have to be ok with it. The teacher then spoke on how many pornstars use their money for karmically negative deeds, so even endorsing pornography is wrong. The flip side of "free" porn would be that it is copyrighted material and hence is technically illegal.


Hmmm, I don't believe these things to be exactly true, even if said by the Dalai Lama.

Not that I myself would be finding loopholes so I could do it, it just seems that the initial statement was so well thought out, I'd like to see a response to those queries.


Liar liar pants on fire. :tongue:
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby Dhondrub » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:14 pm

I think DKR was pointing to the bigotry of pretending to be something you can not live up to.
not about if wanking is good for you or not.
sorry for opening this can of worms
Dhondrub
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby Pero » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:35 pm

Dhondrub wrote:I think DKR was pointing to the bigotry of pretending to be something you can not live up to.


Yeah for sure. :smile:

not about if wanking is good for you or not.
sorry for opening this can of worms


It was actually me who did it, sorry. I guess others here aren't as perverted as me. :rolling:
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:41 pm

Dhondrub wrote:not about if wanking is good for you or not.


Well actually it is considered sexual misconduct in tibetan buddhism ... according to Lamrim at least.

Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby SonamZangpo » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:41 pm

Dhondrub wrote:I think DKR was pointing to the bigotry of pretending to be something you can not live up to.
not about if wanking is good for you or not.
sorry for opening this can of worms



These thoughts of... Not being able to live up to things. Not being able to be celibate. "I'm only a lay practitioner"... It fills me with sorrowful compassion. The entire point of Vajrayana, why it is the indestructible vehicle, is because anyone can become Enlightened in one lifetime, given the effort. Imagine that, one lifetime and you are enlightened? A friend was reading me a teaching the other day over videochat (I always tell him to link me to them so I can read along and he never does, so perhaps I'll quote it later) that it takes merely 13 years of fully devoted practice to become attained.

Now, even thought it is not "impossible" for any of us to become monks or nuns or Buddhas, I do realize there are situations that make it extremely difficult, some of which will do a lot of damaging and harm before good.

As I understand it, in India, a man's life is in three steps- the part where he grows up and establishes his life, the part that he lives his life and has a family, and then toward the end where he becomes devoutly spiritual. Coincidentally enough, I observe this happening often in Buddhism- that someone will remain a casual practitioner, or merely an observer of Buddhism, until they have accomplished most things in the mundane world there is to accomplish, and then they become a devout practitioner. Hey, even the Catholic priest at my Grandmother's Burial (do not say you're sorry, she's in a better place now. She believed she was going to heaven, and I believe she has) a couple weeks ago. Funny enough is that I spoke at the burial, and the priest asked me if I ever considered becoming a priest. Little did he know I was considering, and now I am moving toward the steps to become a monk, that leads me to saying...

(What I wrote wound up being really long and important, so I'm giving it its own thread, methinks. I'll edit this post and link it after the thread is made.)

As far as what I was saying as situations in which it could be damaging, those who are not in my position or one like it (I am literally at a point in my life that I can take on any endeavor I wanted without fear of breaking any obligations already had. I could enter a ten year retreat [I mean, I couldn't do it in reality, I am not prepared, but just as an example] and I wouldn't be missing out on anything, except for maybe my mother's death), they have obligations. Some obligations are less important to the scope of something like Buddhism, like working a job you'd be easily replaced at, with no girlfriend or pets and only a few friends, but on the other hand, some people have great obligations with great amounts of attachment (and not really in a bad way) To things like raising children, taking care of a pet that no one else could if you went away, being a member of your larger family who is regularly depended on, working in a job that is a process you have to see through to the end that is ultimately for a good cause, etc. I will not urge such people into heavily disciplined life, because the potential damage and negative karma coming from abandoning a family who needs you, or a positive cause that needs you, while it would be purified, even after leaving it, thinking about it and having turmoil about it and the attachments to it would be a huge obstacle in the Buddhist path.
http://www.facebook.com/szangpo

http://www.facebook.com/kyle.labonte <- This is my more active facebook, if you want some real discussion

OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SOHA

"The world is dark when you're depressed; your thoughts have the power to invent your world." -Courage Wolf

"It is more important to be kind than to be right."
(I acknowledge I do not follow the quote above this, that is why it is there! so I will be reminded every time I post! :) )
SonamZangpo
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:52 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:52 pm

SonamZangpo wrote:These thoughts of... Not being able to live up to things. Not being able to be celibate. "I'm only a lay practitioner"... It fills me with sorrowful compassion.


yes ... and that there seems to be a total lack of appreciation of virtuous conduct. Each time these issues are being discussed.
And everybody who voices appreciation is critized by fellow buddhist practitioners or even ridiculed. And if this does not take effect then there is talk about bigotry.

No good times, really.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby Dhondrub » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:00 pm

Dudes- I have no clue what you are talking about: nobody here is complaining to be "only a layperson".
And I can assure you Mr. Mingyur that I totally rejoice in every virtue you attempt.
Also I didn`t say you are bigot.

Best

Tashi
Dhondrub
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:51 pm

Dear friend Dhondrub/Tashi

Dhondrub wrote:And I can assure you Mr. Mingyur that I totally rejoice in every virtue you attempt.
Also I didn`t say you are bigot.

Actually I did not understand you meaning it that personal way. However I may have misunderstood this to be a somehow general criticism.
But I appreciate your attempt to avoid misunderstandings and your rejoicing.

Let's just sum it up that we focused on different aspects of precepts in general and specific ones in particular.
You have been focusing on aspects of potential wrong application which is - I have to admit this - a valid concern and I have been focusing on the virtuous aspects of all precepts including the one of celibacy which certainly is no standard precept for laypersons, however imo it may be applicable also to laypersons depending on the practitioner.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby SonamZangpo » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:10 pm

Dhondrub wrote:Dudes- I have no clue what you are talking about: nobody here is complaining to be "only a layperson".
And I can assure you Mr. Mingyur that I totally rejoice in every virtue you attempt.
Also I didn`t say you are bigot.

Best

Tashi


I also apologize or any misunderstanding or miscommunications. I feel at this resolution that now would be the proper time to return to the 5 precepts as a whole, opposed to one specific one. Or, perhaps, a different specific one? Haha. I merely want to avoid things becoming negative. We are all in fact Brothers and Sisters in the Sangha, we are supposed to unite and strengthen each other since walking the path of the Bodhisattva can be difficult, if not nearly impossible, if done alone.



Actually, as far as returning to the original topic, I'll take a chance to ask you all something, something which I know is just my trying to find a loophole (ah, samsaric nature!), but it may be interesting to discuss anyway.

I have heard that the vow to not steal is the easiest one to break fully, even more than intoxicants. It was explained to me the reason it is so easy, is because there is no "partial break" as there are in other vows, and so much qualifies as stealing. Taking anything that isn't explicitly labeled as free or you do not have permission to take is considered stealing.

So, in this modern age of Buddhism, where does the Intellectual Property/Piracy debate come in. I have long been a supporter of Piracy, moreso in music than any other platform, mainly since a lot of artists have shown increased personal revenue from things like concert tickets and merchandise, while lower profits for record companies, which I also think is good because I have heard how corrupt they are.

Now, you have to understand, from an absolute position, piracy is not theft. The original, physical CD is purchased, and then the data on that CD is copied and disbursed. Theft would be stealing the physical copy and not paying for it. I want to stress that again, piracy is not theft. People (the government and corporations) are often speak out against piracy saying something like "you wouldn't steal a car!" But it isn't stealing, it's copying data. If you asked someone if they thought it was wrong to copy pages out of a book to show other people who would be interested, I think we know what the general answer would be. Also, something we seem to forget, is that many people download these pirated albums either so they can hear it before the release date and then buy it when it comes out, or sample an entire album before purchasing it. Many times musicians will only release select songs-they think will appeal to the most people- to the public, and often times, someone will buy an album hoping the rest of the album is like those select songs, and it turns out not to be. A lot of music artists I know personally (some of which have a moderate level of success in their own obscure specialty) do not consider piracy theft. Many of them say the reason anyone charges for a CD is to cover the cost of making the CD, and for the promotions to sell it in the first place, and in the end the artists get very, very little money back for it.

So, thoughts?
http://www.facebook.com/szangpo

http://www.facebook.com/kyle.labonte <- This is my more active facebook, if you want some real discussion

OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SOHA

"The world is dark when you're depressed; your thoughts have the power to invent your world." -Courage Wolf

"It is more important to be kind than to be right."
(I acknowledge I do not follow the quote above this, that is why it is there! so I will be reminded every time I post! :) )
SonamZangpo
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:52 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:16 am

SonamZangpo wrote:I have heard that the vow to not steal is the easiest one to break fully, even more than intoxicants. It was explained to me the reason it is so easy, is because there is no "partial break" as there are in other vows, and so much qualifies as stealing.

I do not think that there are "partial breaks". Actually speaking of "partial breaks" is the first step of compromising the precepts which will eventually lead one on the wrong path.


SonamZangpo wrote:Taking anything that isn't explicitly labeled as free or you do not have permission to take is considered stealing.

The criteria defined for what stealing is are:

1. The basis: The object that is owned by another or others who think(s) or are aware of "This is mine".
2. The attitude or thought which covers
2a. correct perception of the object
2b. obscuring affliction which may be desire, hostility or ignorance
2c. motivation which is the intention to take something you know belonging to someone else. This involves the desire to own and knowing that it was not given to you.
3. The peformance which is the act of stealing.
4. The culmination which means that either you have moved a physical object to your place or if the object cannot be "moved" in the literal sense the thought or awareness "Now I have it" or "Now it's mine".

SonamZangpo wrote:So, in this modern age of Buddhism, where does the Intellectual Property/Piracy debate come in. ...
Now, you have to understand, from an absolute position, piracy is not theft. ...
So, thoughts?

This is an interesting issue. Actually what you are referring to cannot be considered to be taking "something" away from another so that you have it and the other does not have it anymore". Because actually the question is "What is the object?" in the example of piracy in the context of music and DCs the object is copied and actually if there initially has been one who had the object afterwards there is an additional other one who does have it (the music) without the first one loosing possession of the music.
Or is the object the financial value of the music? But when retrieving a copy you do not remove or take a financial value that belongs to another so that afterwards it is in your possession because the value actually is just a speculative idea.
So I guess the problem is really the question "What is considered the basis (object) of the act?" Obviously the basis (object) cannot be correctly discerned/perceived thus there is the lack of a mandatory prerequisite for "stealing".

However there are certainly unwholesome motivations involved in music piracy:
a) desire to make something one's own, to increase one's "possessions" of music, i.e. the mental negative karmic path of covetousness may be complete.
b) attachment to sensual objects/sense pleasures (music)

Thus it seems that piracy is not compliant with a mind intent on renunciation.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby heart » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:21 am

TMingyur wrote:
Dhondrub wrote:not about if wanking is good for you or not.


Well actually it is considered sexual misconduct in tibetan buddhism ... according to Lamrim at least.

Kind regards


That is interesting, isn't it? Because my friends that did three-year retreat told me that if you don't wank you will come during your sleep with a full blown sexual dream (interpreted as rape above). It's something you can't control. So that means the precept, interpreted that way, would be like to promise to never sleep, right? Since sleep is something else you can't control.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:29 am

heart wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Dhondrub wrote:not about if wanking is good for you or not.


Well actually it is considered sexual misconduct in tibetan buddhism ... according to Lamrim at least.

Kind regards


That is interesting, isn't it? Because my friends that did three-year retreat told me that if you don't wank you will come during your sleep with a full blown sexual dream (interpreted as rape above). It's something you can't control. So that means the precept, interpreted that way, would be like to promise to never sleep, right? Since sleep is something else you can't control.

/magnus


That is a strawman.
It is not the case that "if you don't wank then ..." and it is not the case that "you can't control" ...

See it is just your friend who obviously holds this view due to certain experiences and you are welcoming these views because they are supporting your attitude.
To generalize the experience of one being and project it on all beings is really not valid.
The question really is a question of the specific kind of an individual's practice.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby heart » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:32 am

Dhondrub wrote:Dudes- I have no clue what you are talking about: nobody here is complaining to be "only a layperson".
And I can assure you Mr. Mingyur that I totally rejoice in every virtue you attempt.
Also I didn`t say you are bigot.

Best

Tashi


Good point Tashi! I was wondering the same. Matthieu Ricard said in an interview for tricycle about the precept of sexual abstinence that you do your best, then you fail, and then you confess and purify. So as a monk you will develop a lot a humility rather than pride of being a "real" practitioner.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby heart » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:38 am

That is a strawman.
It is not the case that "if you don't wank then ..." and it is not the case that "you can't control" ...

See it is just your friend who obviously holds this view due to certain experiences and you are welcoming these views because they are supporting your attitude.
To generalize the experience of one being and project it on all beings is really not valid.
The question really is a question of the specific kind of an individual's practice.

Kind regards


Well TMingyur for how long have you not wanked without any accidents? I understood that this was medical, not as often as shitting and peeing of course, but something like that. Like I mentioned you don't need to wank, it happens anyway. But maybe the problem is touching your penis not ejaculating?

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:58 am

heart wrote:
That is a strawman.
It is not the case that "if you don't wank then ..." and it is not the case that "you can't control" ...

See it is just your friend who obviously holds this view due to certain experiences and you are welcoming these views because they are supporting your attitude.
To generalize the experience of one being and project it on all beings is really not valid.
The question really is a question of the specific kind of an individual's practice.

Kind regards


Well TMingyur for how long have you not wanked without any accidents? I understood that this was medical, not as often as shitting and peeing of course, but something like that. Like I mentioned you don't need to wank, it happens anyway. But maybe the problem is touching your penis not ejaculating?

/magnus


A matter of months. Please do not expect me to give regular reports. I would appreciate a more non-personal approach to this topic.

There a lot of examples of persons living celibate and abstaining from masturbation, both monks and laypersons.
It is a matter of practice which includes sensual restraint and diet and certain types of meditation.

Be aware that "masturbation" is an intentional act.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby plwk » Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:15 am

Image
plwk
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby ground » Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:34 am

TMingyur wrote:
heart wrote:
That is a strawman.
It is not the case that "if you don't wank then ..." and it is not the case that "you can't control" ...

See it is just your friend who obviously holds this view due to certain experiences and you are welcoming these views because they are supporting your attitude.
To generalize the experience of one being and project it on all beings is really not valid.
The question really is a question of the specific kind of an individual's practice.

Kind regards


Well TMingyur for how long have you not wanked without any accidents? I understood that this was medical, not as often as shitting and peeing of course, but something like that. Like I mentioned you don't need to wank, it happens anyway. But maybe the problem is touching your penis not ejaculating?

/magnus


A matter of months. Please do not expect me to give regular reports. I would appreciate a more non-personal approach to this topic.

There a lot of examples of persons living celibate and abstaining from masturbation, both monks and laypersons.
It is a matter of practice which includes sensual restraint and diet and certain types of meditation.

Be aware that "masturbation" is an intentional act.

Kind regards


But let me add here to avoid misunderstandings:
All precepts are voluntary. If you take the standard ones or additional ... all are voluntary.
There are deeds that are unwholesome by nature and there are deeds that are unwholesome due to breaking vows only and there are deeds that are both.
As to sexual misconduct and what has been written above about masturbation in the context of voluntary celibacy: Of course if there are a male individual's health reasons that require emission of sperm then this may be achieved with the same attitude defecation is performed in order to avoid unwholesome thoughts and motivations and the corresponding habituations. After all emission of sperm can be considered a mere physical reflex and deprived of all ordinary mental obscurations. Thus one may uphold both, the precept of celibacy and the precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct (the latter if one follows a tradition that categorizes masturbation as "sexual misconduct"). Because it is the afflictions involved that entail misconduct, it is not the physical reflex. Of course I am speaking from the perspective of a lay person - I guess my differentiation as to mere physical reflexes lacking any mental obscuration (through means of concentration) is not valid in the context of the vinaya of monks.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby mudra » Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:28 am

TMingyur wrote:Taking anything that isn't explicitly labeled as free or you do not have permission to take is considered stealing.
The criteria defined for what stealing is are:

1. The basis: The object that is owned by another or others who think(s) or are aware of "This is mine".
2. The attitude or thought which covers
2a. correct perception of the object
2b. obscuring affliction which may be desire, hostility or ignorance
2c. motivation which is the intention to take something you know belonging to someone else. This involves the desire to own and knowing that it was not given to you.
3. The peformance which is the act of stealing.
4. The culmination which means that either you have moved a physical object to your place or if the object cannot be "moved" in the literal sense the thought or awareness "Now I have it" or "Now it's mine".



These four points are not the criteria of stealing, they refer to elements that affect the degree or weight of the karma - it is a description of the full karmic path of stealing.

The criteria of stealing is what you said first, taking something that is not freely given or normally available for free, and the object needs only to be the value of say one unit of local currency. If one or two of these elements are missing it's still the karma of stealing, but to a lesser degree.

So if you take something like usage of music that is not freely given, that amounts to some kind of theft.
User avatar
mudra
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby Dhondrub » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:15 am

here you can read the definition of stealing by Ngari Panchen and the late Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche (page 31)

http://books.google.de/books?id=BUFxzsa ... ng&f=false


best

tashi


edit: the text also states adultery as the sexual misconduct of householders
Dhondrub
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 5 Precepts

Postby heart » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:21 am

TMingyur wrote:
TMingyur wrote:A matter of months. Please do not expect me to give regular reports. I would appreciate a more non-personal approach to this topic.

There a lot of examples of persons living celibate and abstaining from masturbation, both monks and laypersons.
It is a matter of practice which includes sensual restraint and diet and certain types of meditation.

Be aware that "masturbation" is an intentional act.

Kind regards


But let me add here to avoid misunderstandings:
All precepts are voluntary. If you take the standard ones or additional ... all are voluntary.
There are deeds that are unwholesome by nature and there are deeds that are unwholesome due to breaking vows only and there are deeds that are both.
As to sexual misconduct and what has been written above about masturbation in the context of voluntary celibacy: Of course if there are a male individual's health reasons that require emission of sperm then this may be achieved with the same attitude defecation is performed in order to avoid unwholesome thoughts and motivations and the corresponding habituations. After all emission of sperm can be considered a mere physical reflex and deprived of all ordinary mental obscurations. Thus one may uphold both, the precept of celibacy and the precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct (the latter if one follows a tradition that categorizes masturbation as "sexual misconduct"). Because it is the afflictions involved that entail misconduct, it is not the physical reflex. Of course I am speaking from the perspective of a lay person - I guess my differentiation as to mere physical reflexes lacking any mental obscuration (through means of concentration) is not valid in the context of the vinaya of monks.
Kind regards


First, the way you take these precepts are depending on how they are interpreted by the preceptor and not how they are interpreted on some internet forum. When my master give these precepts he said that you shouldn't sleep with the partner of someone else, period. There exist scriptural source for many different ways to interpret just about anything in the Tibetan tradition. It is important to don't become to melodramatic when you take vows and precepts and in general the most important thing is your overall attitude of not wanting to hurt sentient beings. TMingyur, you obviously have a wish to become a monk and I wish you great success in following this aspiration through. However as a monk you will depend on the kindness of laypersons and being to judgmental about different interpretations of these precepts might be both unkind and unwise. There have to be some balance as this is the middle path.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aussiebloke, Dan74, Fruitzilla, gentle_monster, rai, Sherab Dorje, Soar, Tanaduk, valdemar, xabir, zenman and 23 guests

>