What is disallowed under Buddhism?

What of societies choices are frowned upon if any by Buddhism ?

Does a Buddhist have to live their life by a certain moral code?

In practice what code if any does a believer have to practice in terms of say family values, marriage, sexual preferences/relationships, drugs,alcohol , business ethics and consumerism amongst others?
Is it possible/probable that the "code" if it exists would be a limitation on what might be loosely described as normal western lifestyles??

If I were to have a discussion on any of these topics , is there a definite line that would either have to be, or most likely would be taken by a buddhist that would distinguish his or her attitude from a non Buddhist.

I'd like to hear answers to this from mainly peoples personal experience, but with some links to where the "law" in these areas are written in stone so to speak, if they are at all that is.

mm

mickmacdublin

What of societies choices are frowned upon if any by Buddhism

Does a Buddhist have to live their life by a certain moral code?

yes we do. The buddha gave 5 precepts for lay people

1. Not to cause harm by physical actions
2. Not to cause harm by actions of speech (lying, harsh words etc)
3. Not to cause harm though sexual activity
4. Not to steal or take what is not given
5. Not to take intoxicants

They are not absolute commandments but codes of conduct that will lead to less suffering.

How these are interpreted varies in the detail. Some Buddhists won't eat any meat, others will eat meat providing it's not killed specially for them.

Some Buddhists don't drink at all, others will take one or two. The important thing is not to get drunk.

But I've found in general that on common moral issues Buddhists will take varying positions. For example abortion - since it is the taking of life I do not support it but... I do not support the government creating a law that stops women choosing what to do with their own bodies.

I think the general Buddhist approach is that in any given situation the most moral thing to do is what causes the least amount of suffering - understanding what that is however is by no means easy!

As to what differentiate Buddhist from non- Buddhist approaches to moral problems I think you do not get any clear line - except that I think Buddhist teaching encourages one to look at issue on a "per case" basis. Every problem is different - across the board rules often do not work. Most Buddhist do not support killing but in some cases killing someone might be the moral thing to do - for example to save the lives of more people.

Mick

Interesting.
and is there a sanction if a Buddhist shall not follow any one of those precepts?
Or is it left to the individual to moderate their behaviour?

How difficult is it in practice for individuals to stick to the letter of the law so to speak?

By causing harm is there a hard and fast rule to the interpretation of this ?
For instance, one could be perceived by someone as having carried out actions that harm them, yet what you do is above board and within the law.
For example , opening a shop next door to another, taking some of the latters business, would that qualify as a harmfull act?

mm

mickmacdublin

and is there a sanction if a Buddhist shall not follow any one of those precepts?

No - not in the biblical sense of divine revenge. The law of karma - cause and effect - ensures that if one commits negative deeds that negative results will ensue eventually and - it follows - doing positive deeds will make life easier. There is no moral arbiter as such - it's just the way life is!

How difficult is it in practice for individuals to stick to the letter of the law so to speak

That depends on the individual - I don't think the five precepts are too difficult - its just common decency- monks vows involving celibacy etc are another kettle of fish.

By causing harm is there a hard and fast rule to the interpretation of this

Alas no but the important thing is motivation. Even if one causes harm through ignorance it is not as bad as willfully harming another for one's own benefit.

For instance, one could be perceived by someone as having carried out actions that harm them, yet what you do is above board and within the law.

If one's motivation is greed or hatred then one's action is immoral even if the civil law sees no crime.

For example , opening a shop next door to another, taking some of the latters business, would that qualify as a harmfull act?

Not unless you wished to spitefully get at the existing shop owner. How could you know that something like that would be harmful. It might inspire the other to work harder to build his business and create new jobs for all you know.

Mick

Raphael

I was just wondering what would be the attitude of a buddhist towards violent sports like rugby

mickmacdublin

I don't particularly like rugby myself but I don't see much wrong with it except that - like any sport - it may breed an unhealthy competitiveness.

The main thing to bear in mind about Buddhist morality is the role played by intention. If one's intention is to be of benefit (and one has the wisdom to know what is beneficial) any act can be moral - even killing. If one is acting out of ignorance, greed or hatred then whatever one's actions - even giving to charity for instance - can be immoral.

Some sports such as boxing where the aim is to disable your opponent so he cannot continue I don't think many Buddhist would approve of.

Even martial arts - some of which supposedly are based on Buddhist principles - I sometimes have trouble with. But maybe that's to do with people using them wrongly.

Chowley

What about muay thai. I found this very strange when I was in thailand that it is so popular, and so many people train in it at some stage in there life.It is so violent.Yet they are so devoted to buddhism.I think I only met one person there who disliked muay thai and she absolutely hated it and did not drink either.Why is it so acceptable when the people in general hate aggression and seemingly being against the religion.
I really dont know anything about Buddhism I just learned a little over there.

mickmacdublin

I don't know about muay thai (is that kickboxing?) - I suppose it is a cultural thing.

There may be arguments for and against: maybe it helps lads channel aggression into sport that might otherwise come out in other ways. But maybe it may teach people moves they use outside the ring.

It's not clear cut.

As I was saying in earlier posts in Buddhist thought no action itself is inherently good or bad it is the intention of the one performing the action that makes it good or bad.

Mick

Chowley

Ya it is definately a cultural thing.Its an amazing martial art/sport though.(Ya its quite like kickboxing alright but twice as dangerous, its been around for a very long time as far as i know.)
It is very good humoured, they seem very friendly towards eachother between attempts to beat eachother senseless .

DOD1

What is the Buddhist attitude to Pornography? Is this considered a harmful activity. I do accept, developing dependencies on Pornography or turning sexuality into a sinister, tacky affair is not really a good thing, but I also believe sexuality is something totally natural and sometimes, when you don't have a partner to express your sexual yearnings with, pornography or masturbation can be a way of channeling that sexual tension. I'm interested to hear the Buddhist perspective.

Also, I was formerly a member of Sinn Féin, I left the party not because I did not agree with them anymore but because I didn't see myself as being cut out for political activism. I still consider myself to be a committed Republican Socialist and I was just wondering do Buddhists in Ireland take a view on this, or would members be made free to have their own private political beliefs?

I don't know If I would become a full on Buddhist if it were, but I do believe from what limited stuff I know about the religion that it is a very positive movement and a good way of dealing with the bull**** we all have to go through in this world and I intend to learn more.

mickmacdublin

I don't think the Buddha mentioned anything about pornography but I think there many aspects of pornography which I think are unacceptable under the 3rd precept. Just a few - many people involved in porn would not do so if they had a choice but owing to poverty, drug abuse etc they are easy prey for exploitation, organised crime has a big input into the creation and distribution of porn, pornography can create unrealistic and unhealthy views of sexuality viewing women as mere sex objects. Some points I think not consonant with the Buddhist view - perhaps there are more.

As regards masturbation - AFAIK there are no prohibitions for lay people in that regard.

As regards a united Ireland i think everyone would have their own view. Certainly there would be no support for violence from whatever side from Buddhists. Personally (and I grew up in West Belfast) I couldn't give a toss about a united Ireland provided there is a just society with freedom of expression.

Mick

funky penguin

With regards to the Martial Arts area, didnt Buddhist monks develop a form of hand to hand combat in order to provide protection against unwanted attackers? Or am i thinking of something different?

Anyway, i gots a question. SInce Buddhists abstain from causing harm by physical actions, would it be wrong for such a person to "fight back", if physically provoked?

mickmacdublin

With regards to the Martial Arts area, didnt Buddhist monks develop a form of hand to hand combat in order to provide protection against unwanted attackers? Or am i thinking of something different?

I am not sure of the exact origins of Kung Fu and the Shaolin Temple stories. I think much of it is chinese blarney. It may be the case that monks did develop such skills to protect themselves on alms rounds. I rather suspect their is a more mundane and less romantic reason - monasteries in China were often important regional centres and had their own armies and fought against one another. If monks were involved in the creation of martial arts it is more likely for plain old military rather than spiritual reasons.

Anyway, i gots a question. SInce Buddhists abstain from causing harm by physical actions, would it be wrong for such a person to "fight back", if physically provoked?

I would certainly defend myself if attacked. I think it is wrong to start a fight but see nothing wrong in preventing my teeth getting kicked in. Even in self defense though one should appropriate force. one's motivation should be to protect oneself not to hurt the attacker (unless causing them physical harm was the only way to get them to stop). I suppose in some cases even a "tactical first strike" might be legittimate if it prevented further violence but I can't think of a clear example off the top of my head.

Trojan

Originally posted by mickmacdublin


1. Not to cause harm by physical actions
2. Not to cause harm by actions of speech (lying, harsh words etc)
3. Not to cause harm though sexual activity
4. Not to steal or take what is not given
5. Not to take intoxicants

They are not absolute commandments but codes of conduct that will lead to less suffering.

Ok, I'm learning more about Buddhism, bear with my simple views.

The precepts are: 1) Try not to cause harm (obvious reasons), 2) Don't steal (same), 3) Don't drink/get drunk (to maintain clarity of thought? Lost me here).

On rugby: (I may be wrong here - no academic background on this subject), but it seems to me that field games like this are a substitute for battle. A positive way for people, men in particular, to channel their energy and testosterone.

For me as a player, rugby is about strength and honour (yes, like in Gladiator - don't laugh). Respect for ones opponent is always given (watch what the teams do at the end of play). I think it's a very positive sport.

Al.

alyuciao

They take the good parts and use them when necessary....

They tend to be born into Shintoism and have ceremonies when they are 7 and 3 years old for girls. 5 for boys.

Then when they die they use the Buddhist ceremonies.

Asiaprod

alyuciao wrote: »

They tend to be born into Shintoism and have ceremonies when they are 7 and 3 years old for girls. 5 for boys.

3, 5, and 7 is for both boys and girls. Rugby is good.
The key to buddhism is respect for all and moderation in all things.

tej

Raphael wrote: »

I was just wondering what would be the attitude of a buddhist towards violent sports like rugby

Taking risk & enjoing sport which is may be painful is not irrelegious. However, the sports such as bullfight & cockfight are not permissible. Because, the violennce is inflicted on these animals without there willingness.

tej

Asiaprod wrote: »

3, 5, and 7 is for both boys and girls. Rugby is good.
The key to buddhism is respect for all and moderation in all things.

Dharma (religion) is Desh (place) Kaal (time) & Patra (person) specific. There are as many ways of practicing religion as number of people. Every one is trying to achieve the same goal & reach the same god but they are standing in different places because of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intrinsically, individuals are different because of their different physical, mental, financial & emotional abilities. At the same time the external factors such as social values, upbringing, weather & the overall environment in which they are living in are also different. All these, puts every individual in a particular place around god; from where there is a unique path for him to reach the almighty god. Furthermore, all of us should remember that the same path goes in opposite direction as well and it will take him away from god. The path which goes to god consists of godly charecters such as non-violence, compassion, forgiveness, sacrifice, strength, knowledge and so on. Similarly, the path consisting of violence, anger, rudeness, weakness and others takes you away from god.
BE VEGETARIAN. DONT KILL ANIMALS & BIRDS. DONT HURT ANY HUMAN BEING BY (MANSA, WACHA KARMANA) THOUGHT, SPEECH & ACTION.
May god bless you all.

Asiaprod

Thank you for that. Would you mind introducing yourself? We welcome all here.:)

tej

I am a doctor based in Cavan, Ireland. I am born in a hindu family in I ndia & have grown up in a neighbourhood consisting of Muslims, Christians & Buddhists. I am of the opinion that all of us, whatever religeon we follow; are trying to achieve same thing in this life & after that. To some extent, all the religeons & their teachings help us in achieving that. However, I feel that modern religeons have inflicted significant harm to the humanity & the wider living beings. They have divided us into different groups and have seeded distrust in the mind of their followers for the the people of the other faiths. They teach that there is only one way to achieve the goal and that is theirs.
In fact, god has created all of us. In that sense, we all are sons and daughters of him. As he is supreme father, we all are brothers and sisters in that sense. He loves all of us. He is happy when we respect him, pray him & worship him. But, he is happier when we take care of his other sons and doughters. He rewards us for our good deeds, and punishes when required to keep us on right path, as any father would do.
Painting the picture of a god who is self centered, wants everyone to bow in front of him and who punishes his kids for not doing that, doesn't impress me.
Wish you a very happy Christmas & New Year 2011.

Bodhidharma

funky penguin wrote: »

With regards to the Martial Arts area, didnt Buddhist monks develop a form of hand to hand combat in order to provide protection against unwanted attackers? Or am i thinking of something different?

Haven't posted on this forum for a long time but couldn't resist this one. According to legend, Bodhidharma (the original one) upset at the physical condition of monks at Shaolin developed martial arts based on the movements of various animals which were the foundations of Kung Fu.

Of course all of this is unconfirmed but its a nice story.

I think there is a strong connection between Buddhism and martial arts which is actually quite beneficial. Both require a clear mind and honest dedication.

As for Muay Thai (and conventional boxing, MMA, kickboxing etc) the aim is NOT to knock someone unconscious or hurt them, it is to best them in a contest. Both participants should be of roughly equal skill and physical attributes and agree to take part so I cannot see any harm in it. Obviously people get hurt but generally participants show great respect to each other (particularly in Muay Thai if I'm not mistaken).

conor.hogan.2

What is the general consensus on meat and drugs (alcohol, anadins etc) ?

Meat is ok in moderation and if its not killed specificaly for you?
Drink etc in moderation?

Cork24

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

What is the general consensus on meat and drugs (alcohol, anadins etc) ?

Meat is ok in moderation and if its not killed specificaly for you?
Drink etc in moderation?

Meat is ok. Drink drugs etc anything that affects your sense should not be taken.

conor.hogan.2

Thanks.

But is it alcohol (and drugs in general) that shouldnt be taken or they shouldnt be taken when they distract you?