The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

For years I assumed that when one goes for refuge in the triple jewel as a committed lay practitioner, one also soon thereafter would need to take the five lay vows as well.

Most sources sort of imply this without necessarily stating it directly.

Other sources I have been digging into, however, suggest that one need not in fact take any of the five vows.

However, it seems according to one other source I trust that the vows are necessary to become an Upāsaka or Upāsikā. In other words, with the refuge but without the five vows you cannot call yourself an Upāsaka or an Upāsikā; you would be...something else.

What, exactly? Or are the vows truly "optional" for Upāsaka and Upāsikā status?

This question maddens me because I feel it is basic knowledge and I should have nailed this down conclusively years ago. I thought I did. Secondary sources seem to be inconclusive and I'm not sure where to go hunting around in the Tripitaka for "the answer." Like many East Asian Mahayanists, I admit I'm a little weak on the nitty-gritty of the Vinaya.

I would welcome any input. I'd especially be interested to hear from the poster "Malcolm" because he seemed in a post last week to have a firm grasp of this issue, but I didn't get to pick his brains at the time.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

I practice in a Tibetan tradition. The vows are optional. However to my great surprise, I’ve been told that in Theravada you automatically take the vows when you take Refuge.

So different traditions have different answers.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Different traditions indeed have radically different conceptions of the Precepts.

Trying to plumb the theoretical contortions of Japanese sectarian precept theories through the centuries and across the sects all day has left me with a thudding head.

However, leaving aside the more arcane details of the Precepts, as well as our esteemed Theravadin cousins, for moment, it seems to me that on the simple, basic matter of refuge and the five lay vows there should be some kind of pan-Mahayana/Vajrayana ur-consensus.

Call me crazy, but this is not arcane stuff: it's the basic entryway into the Mahayana Dharma for laypersons. And let us not forget that Vajrayana and Mahayana are not technically sperate -- Vajrayana is ultimately, rooted in Mahayana conceptions and practices for Bodhisattva-hood, compassion, and arousal of noble aspirations.

So at the most basic entry point for laypeople, there should be some solid "master key" to the taking on of Upasaka laity in its most generalized form (Theravada perhaps aside). And if there are differences across Mahayana/Vajrayana sects or vehicles, I think they need to be backed up by pretty robust reasoning.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:43 am For years I assumed that when one goes for refuge in the triple jewel as a committed lay practitioner, one also soon thereafter would need to take the five lay vows as well.

Most sources sort of imply this without necessarily stating it directly.
The most comprehensive presentation of which vows an upasāka follows is found in the fourth chapter of the Abhdharmakośabhaṣyaṃ. You receive all the vows merely by goingfor refuge to the Three Jewels. However, one can elect to only follow those vows one feels capable of, beginning with refraining from taking life.
Other sources I have been digging into, however, suggest that one need not in fact take any of the five vows.
Yes, there are one vow, two vow, three, vow and full-vow upasākas. This is taught by the Buddha.
What, exactly? Or are the vows truly "optional" for Upāsaka and Upāsikā status?
At minimum, one holds the commitments of refuge and the vow against killing (which really refers to killing humans, but it widely interpreted to cover all creatures).

This is complicated by taking bodhisattva vows. Since bodhisattva vows supersede pratimokṣa vows, whenever the former contradict the latter, the former should be followed and not the latter in order to avoid a bodhisattva downfall. The same applies to Vajrayāna vows.

Buddhist Ethics by Kongtrul has the most detailed presentation.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:05 pm
However, leaving aside the more arcane details of the Precepts, as well as our esteemed Theravadin cousins, for moment, it seems to me that on the simple, basic matter of refuge and the five lay vows there should be some kind of pan-Mahayana/Vajrayana ur-consensus.
No, there cannot be, for the simple reason that Sino-Japanese Buddhists have a completely different vinaya, Dharmaguptaka, that Tibetan Buddhists, who follow Mulasarvastivada.Also, the bodhisattva vow tradition is completely different, based either on the Madhyamaka tradition (Sakya, Nyingma) or the Yogācara tradition, (Kadampa, Geluk).
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:14 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:43 am For years I assumed that when one goes for refuge in the triple jewel as a committed lay practitioner, one also soon thereafter would need to take the five lay vows as well.

Most sources sort of imply this without necessarily stating it directly.
The most comprehensive presentation of which vows an upasāka follows is found in the fourth chapter of the Abhdharmakośabhaṣyaṃ. You receive all the vows merely by goingfor refuge to the Three Jewels. However, one can elect to only follow those vows one feels capable of, beginning with refraining from taking life.
Other sources I have been digging into, however, suggest that one need not in fact take any of the five vows.
Yes, there are one vow, two vow, three, vow and full-vow upasākas. This is taught by the Buddha.
What, exactly? Or are the vows truly "optional" for Upāsaka and Upāsikā status?
At minimum, one holds the commitments of refuge and the vow against killing (which really refers to killing humans, but it widely interpreted to cover all creatures).

This is complicated by taking bodhisattva vows. Since bodhisattva vows supersede pratimokṣa vows, whenever the former contradict the latter, the former should be followed and not the latter in order to avoid a bodhisattva downfall. The same applies to Vajrayāna vows.

Buddhist Ethics by Kongtrul has the most detailed presentation.
Thanks so very much for your clear and helpful answer. Cuts through a lot of the noise indeed.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:55 pm

Thanks so very much for your clear and helpful answer. Cuts through a lot of the noise indeed.
Then of course, in Dzoghen teachings, there are really no vows to follow, in general. However, they are mentioned in various Dzogchen tantras because they are useful guidelines for unrealized people to follow. In general, if someone reaches the path of seeing, they are beyond all vows anyway.
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 3275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am
Location: He/Him from EU

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:05 pm
However, leaving aside the more arcane details of the Precepts, as well as our esteemed Theravadin cousins, for moment, it seems to me that on the simple, basic matter of refuge and the five lay vows there should be some kind of pan-Mahayana/Vajrayana ur-consensus.
No, there cannot be, for the simple reason that Sino-Japanese Buddhists have a completely different vinaya, Dharmaguptaka, that Tibetan Buddhists, who follow Mulasarvastivada.Also, the bodhisattva vow tradition is completely different, based either on the Madhyamaka tradition (Sakya, Nyingma) or the Yogācara tradition, (Kadampa, Geluk).
I assume that Kagyu follow the Yogacara tradition since they were heavily influenced by Kadamapa thanks to Gampopa, right?

Also Chandragomin's presentation of bodhisattva vows is quite different from the usual (18 root and 46 branch vows) as he talks about 4 root vows and 46 branch vows (Chandragomin' Twenty Verses on Bodhisattva Vows found in The Vows of the Three Vehicles) do you happen to know why is this so? If it is just a more essential way of presenting those vows or is it a different tradition?
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.

- Arya Sanghata Sutra
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

And then there is the 末法思想 or Mappo Shiso, a medieval theory that we are living in or very close to a supremely degenerate age (called the "Latter Dharma" age) in which it is no longer possible, let alone desirable, for anyone whatsoever to attempt to keep any vows at all. The Candle of the Latter Law explains (or at least astounds):

The activities of the monks of this age are already identical to those of the Latter Dharma. Within the Latter Dharma only the written teachings exist. Their is neither practice nor enlightenment. If precepts existed, then it would be possible to break the precepts. But since precepts no longer exist, what precepts are there to break? And since it is no longer possible to break the precepts, how much less can one keep the precepts? For this reason, the Great Collection Sutra states:
"After the Buddha's nirvana, monks without precepts will be found thoughout the province. (And so forth.)"

...the point under discussion here concerns the fact that in the Latter Dharma, there are only nominal bhiksus. These nominal bhiksus are the True Treasures of the world. There are no other field of merit where one can plant merit. Furthermore, if someone were to keep the precepts in the Latter Dharma, this would be exceedingly strange indeed. It would be like a tiger in the marketplace. Who could believe it?

...in roll nine of the Great Collection Sutra, it is stated:
"For example, pure gold is considered a priceless treasure. But if pure gold did not exist, then silver would be considered a priceless treasure. If silver did not exist, then brass, a false treasure, would be considered a priceless treasure. If a false treasure did not exist, then cuprite, nickel, iron, pewter, lead, or tin would be considered priceless treasures. Likewise, in the entire world, the Buddha Treasure is priceless. If the Buddha Treasure did not exist, then the pratyekabuddha would be considered supreme. If no pratyekabuddha existed, then the arhat would be considered supreme. If no arhat existed, then the remaining group of wise sages would be considered supreme. If the remaining group of wise sages did not exist, an ordinary man who had attained a state of concentration would be considered supreme. If no ordinary man who had attained a state of concentration existed, a pure keeper of the precepts would be considered supreme. If no pure keeper of the precepts existed, then a bhiksu who kept the precepts imperfectly would be considered supreme. If no bhiksu who kept the precepts existed, then a nominal bhiksu who shaved his hair and beard and donned Buddhist robes would be considered the Supreme Treasure. This is because he is preeminent when compared to the practitioners of the ninety-five kinds of non-Buddhist paths. He is worthy of accepting the veneration of the people of the world and becoming the field of merit of the populace. Why? Because he is feared by sentient beings. The person who protects, cares for, and worships him will quickly attain the rank of insight in the birthlessness of dharmas. (This ends the quotation from the sutra.)"

This passage enumerates eight levels of pricelessness: the Tathagata, the pratyekabuddha, the sravaka, as well as the practitioners who have attained a state of concentration, the one who keeps the precepts, the one who breaks the precepts, and the nominal monk without the precepts. In this order, they all become priceless treasures...For this reason, we can clearly see that monks who break the precepts and monks who do not keep the precepts are both True Treasures.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Bristollad
Posts: 1121
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Bristollad »

I came across this interesting teaching on the two traditions of the bodhisattva vows, given by HH the Karmapa:
https://kagyuoffice.org/the-gyalwang-ka ... eive-them/

There is a short précis at the top of the page and then a small gap and a more complete transcription.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Bristollad wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:56 pm I came across this interesting teaching on the two traditions of the bodhisattva vows, given by HH the Karmapa:
https://kagyuoffice.org/the-gyalwang-ka ... eive-them/

There is a short précis at the top of the page and then a small gap and a more complete transcription.
Many thanks!
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Malcolm »

Bristollad wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:56 pm I came across this interesting teaching on the two traditions of the bodhisattva vows, given by HH the Karmapa:
https://kagyuoffice.org/the-gyalwang-ka ... eive-them/

There is a short précis at the top of the page and then a small gap and a more complete transcription.
One point, the reason the Sakyapas prefer the Madhyamaka tradition is they do consider it superior to the Yogacara tradition.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:45 am
Bristollad wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:56 pm I came across this interesting teaching on the two traditions of the bodhisattva vows, given by HH the Karmapa:
https://kagyuoffice.org/the-gyalwang-ka ... eive-them/

There is a short précis at the top of the page and then a small gap and a more complete transcription.
One point, the reason the Sakyapas prefer the Madhyamaka tradition is they do consider it superior to the Yogacara tradition.
By the way, do most Tibetan Buddhists feel so? That was sort of my impression.

I know in Japan the Yogacara school (法相宗) was generally seen as superior to the Madhyamaka school (三論宗). Part of the reason is that the Yogacarins brought in more texts and translations and kind of outclassed the Madhyamaka thinkers (who were from an older, smaller, and less textually rich sect) in the Annual Court-Sponsored Doctrinal debates.

But I suspect the real reason is that the Yogacara school was headquartered in a very large and wealthy temple that was connected to House Fujiwara, second only to the Imperial House Yamato in power at the time.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by LastLegend »

:lol: :lol: :lol:
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by LastLegend »

I vote Lotus Sutra :lol: .
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by FiveSkandhas »

LastLegend wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:18 am I vote Lotus Sutra :lol: .
Careful what you wish for...

The Lotus Sutra and the Perfect-Sudden Precepts (PDF):
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... n_Precepts
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:59 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:45 am
Bristollad wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:56 pm I came across this interesting teaching on the two traditions of the bodhisattva vows, given by HH the Karmapa:
https://kagyuoffice.org/the-gyalwang-ka ... eive-them/

There is a short précis at the top of the page and then a small gap and a more complete transcription.
One point, the reason the Sakyapas prefer the Madhyamaka tradition is they do consider it superior to the Yogacara tradition.
By the way, do most Tibetan Buddhists feel so? That was sort of my impression.

I know in Japan the Yogacara school (法相宗) was generally seen as superior to the Madhyamaka school (三論宗). Part of the reason is that the Yogacarins brought in more texts and translations and kind of outclassed the Madhyamaka thinkers (who were from an older, smaller, and less textually rich sect) in the Annual Court-Sponsored Doctrinal debates.

But I suspect the real reason is that the Yogacara school was headquartered in a very large and wealthy temple that was connected to House Fujiwara, second only to the Imperial House Yamato in power at the time.
During the middle period of transmission of Mahayana from India to China, the period from 400 CE and 600 CE, Yogacara was at the very height of its popularity in India. But Madhyamaka made a resurgence in India during the period from 600 to 800, which accounts for the unequivocal adoption of Madhyamaka as the officially sanctioned view of Mahayana in Tibet.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: The relationship between going for refuge and the five vows

Post by Norwegian »

Könchok Thrinley wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:40 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:05 pm
However, leaving aside the more arcane details of the Precepts, as well as our esteemed Theravadin cousins, for moment, it seems to me that on the simple, basic matter of refuge and the five lay vows there should be some kind of pan-Mahayana/Vajrayana ur-consensus.
No, there cannot be, for the simple reason that Sino-Japanese Buddhists have a completely different vinaya, Dharmaguptaka, that Tibetan Buddhists, who follow Mulasarvastivada.Also, the bodhisattva vow tradition is completely different, based either on the Madhyamaka tradition (Sakya, Nyingma) or the Yogācara tradition, (Kadampa, Geluk).
I assume that Kagyu follow the Yogacara tradition since they were heavily influenced by Kadamapa thanks to Gampopa, right?

Also Chandragomin's presentation of bodhisattva vows is quite different from the usual (18 root and 46 branch vows) as he talks about 4 root vows and 46 branch vows (Chandragomin' Twenty Verses on Bodhisattva Vows found in The Vows of the Three Vehicles) do you happen to know why is this so? If it is just a more essential way of presenting those vows or is it a different tradition?
There are two Bodhisattva traditions. There's the Madhyamaka tradition, which is known as the Gambhiradarshanaparampara (Tradition of the Profound View), compiled by Manjushri, primarily elaborated upon by Nagarjuna, and spread by Shantideva. With regards to the vows, the Madhyamaka tradition follows the Akashagarbha Sutra and the Mahaguhya-upayakaushalya Sutra, and the vows as elaborated upon in Shantideva’s Shiksasamuccaya.

Then there's the Yogachara tradition, which is known as the Udaracaryaparampara (Tradition of Extremely Vast Conduct), compiled by Maitreya, elaborated upon by Asanga and Vasubandhu, and spread by Atisha. This tradition follows the Bodhisattvabhumi, and the Bodhisattvasamvaravimshika (Twenty Verses on the Bodhisattva Vow) as taught by Chandragomin.

So then as Malcolm says above, there are differences with regards to the Bodhisattva vow traditions in Tibetan Buddhism, and the above explains why.
Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”