How strict are you about following rules and precepts?

Hi! I'd like to post a question I already posted on reddit to know what you hippies think about it.

One of the things I like most of buddhism is the number of schools and traditions. However, this means that different traditions put different stress on the same rule or precept. I met people who diligently follow every rule and precept, and others who see the same rules as a ladder to push off once they reach the top. Some buddhists even consider the Four Noble Truths as the only core of buddhism.

What do you think? How strict are you about following rules and precepts?

 

Most of the hippies I've met love the philosophical teachings of Buddha, but they aren't Buddhists in the traditional sense. They don't like following any rules. That's me too.

 

I agree with Karen.

You don't need to follow the rules to reap the benefits of Buddhist thought. I admire Buddhism but would never call myself a Buddhist. That would seem like a fraudulent claim because I don't believe in concrete Buddhism, but rather draw inspiration from it. I think they got a lot of things right, but they are still vulnerable to the pitfalls of all major religions. This is something I tend do distance myself from.

 

Are the pitfalls in the doing?

 

Humans tend to introduce the same problems into every religion as it matures and grows. Superstition grows within it, a power structure develops, and ego battles increasingly shape the leadership. The original teachings of the founder become merely one component of the movement, among many.

 

main stricture is to not kill, same as all religions, and though I kill insects, and unfortunately small animals (as a chef), nonetheless I feel very strict to not kill another higher sentient being (which includes humans), as well as not killing anything for sport.

This not killing higher beings is an absolute standard in Buddhism. You can claim Buddhist until you become a killer. Then, too late, I don't care what the tales of Milarepa say.

Other strictures may be important to a smaller degree.

To meditate your mind needs to rest - you cannot rest the mind while it is divided in conflict - these rules aren't for the victim but for the meditator.

 

Not strict in any sense at all. I live life to experience and I willingly accept the delusion of craving for now. My ego is starved and I feed it (not TOO much of course, I'm not an egomaniac =] ). Eventually it will dissipate and the craving will cease to be. I completely accept that. But, as of now, there will most likely be no enlightenment for me in this life and I'm okay with that.

We all return to the 'self' eventually.

 

Moderately。 I try to follow the five lay precepts to the best of my abilities.

I do not kill living beings intentionally. Unintentionally, or absentmindedly, I may step on a small crawling creature or swat at an insect that's bothering me and accidentally kill it. I know my car kills insects, and some day I may accidentally hit a larger animal. But if it can be helped, I go out of my way to avoid killing. I do eat some meat occasionally, which is in line with traditional Buddhist doctrine (depending on the teachings you look at, obviously - with any one teaching there is likely to be a few dissenting teachings from other schools or figures) but I try to keep meat consumption to a minimum. I would like to eliminate it entirely.

I do not take what is not given, to the best of my ability. Even in cases when it is a "victimless" crime, I do not take what is not offered to me (explicitly or implicitly), sold to me, or which has no owner which can be found (for instance, if I find a dollar on the ground). I admit I am not perfect, but I can only recall one time in the past year in which I took something knowing that it wasn't mine, but it was a single stick of incense which would have been available had I asked (communal property for a group to which I belong).

I try my best to avoid sexual misconduct. This is explained variously by different teachers, and in the scripture it is sometimes spelled out and sometimes not. Overall, it is a rather vague precept according to the way sex is conceived of in contemporary culture. It is also the case that sex is alluring in a way that many other things are not. I do not sleep around, though, and have never coerced someone into sex.

I try not to lie. This can be tricky for me sometimes, because little white lies and fibs can sneak in once in a while, and sometimes there is a thin line between joking and lying. But I do my best.

I do not drink alcohol. I used to, sure. And in great quantities. But it has been close to three years since my last drink. It's been longer since I've used marijuana. It's been longer still since I've used anything more controversial drugs. I have had kava kava on a few occasions this year, which I think is in a grey area, but certainly less intoxicating than cannabis or alcohol. Frankly, I would be interested in trying pot again, and if I do I might be okay with smoking once in a while. I'm on a summer break, so maybe I will if some becomes available, but we'll see. I'm conflicted about that. I have absolutely no desire or intention to drink alcohol again, though.

The precepts, in my mind, are more important than meditation of conceptualization of doctrine/scripture/etc. However, nobody except monks are held to so high a standard that they are expected to never, ever do any of the above. It is rather said that they are unwholesome things which have a negative karmic impact. In excess, these things may lead to rebirth in the "ghost" or "hell" realms. Unlike Abrahamic religion, though, there is no entity judging you and damning you. It is your own doing, and just like everything else in samsara existence in these states is impermanent and will come to an eventual end. These precepts are intended to guide us toward better living, but relying on them alone is not enough to ensure awakening, only (if we're lucky) a happy rebirth. As such, they are an ideal to strive for as lay people, but let's face it: sometimes people fall short.

Even monks have told me that sometimes it's okay to drink a little, as long as you can know when to stop and not get too inebriated. I chose not to drink not because I think drinking itself will be so unwholesome that it will send me to an unhappy state in a future life, but because it has so often sent me to an unhappy state in this very life, and I suspect it can again.

The five lay precepts are close to descending order of karmic impact. Killing is worst. Intoxicants are not necessarily entirely unwholesome on their own merits, but more because they lead to heedlessness: when drunk, you're more likely to do those other bad things, and when drunk you're less likely to apply yourself towards "self" cultivation.

I do try to keep the precepts, but when I fail I try to recognize that it isn't the end of the world, it's probably not the worst thing anyone's ever done, and probably not even the worst thing I've ever done. If you don't succeed, it's important to try to right your wrongs and keep at it anyway.

The Dhamma is important because it is designed to lead to a cessation of suffering. The idea of unwholesome or unskillful actions is sometimes described in English as sin, which is accurate to an extent, but only to an extent. They are things to avoid, but not necessarily evil. More to the point, they just lead to no good.

I do not have the dedication, strength of faith, or anything like that, to believe that it's likely I may become an arahant in this life. Therefore, unless I decide to take up monastic life, I try to follow the precepts but accept that I may fall short, sometimes more often or more significantly than I'd wish. However, like I've said...I do try to keep them.