'Breaking' the Precepts and the Grave Offenses

I have most likely mentioned precepts and grave offenses before ... somewhere ... but perhaps it deserves a spotlight as a 'main topic' for discussion. As always, read all the disclaimers about my legitimacy or lack thereof in spouting off on such matters and take what I write here with a grain or eighty-four thousand of salt. Or, in the feel of the jazz I am listening to right now on local public radio - Caveat emptor, baby!

A year or so ago I had the insightful pleasure and honor of being at a ceremony where a senior student was taking their vows to become a shramenera, sometimes referred to as a 'novice' monk. The ceremony included a great dharma talk which stressed that the precepts cannot be broken. We may falter and drop them or cast them aside, but we can always pick them up again.

Imagine that. Obviously not all monastic Buddhists have practiced that way, but I personally think it accords rather well with the Mahayana teachings about emptiness, Buddha-nature, and the like. Then of course, there is the issue of grave offenses, which I suppose are akin to the deadly sins of Catholicism. In the Pure Land tradition, for example, it is said that one who commits one or more of the grave offenses cannot enter the Pure Land of Bliss.

I suppose that if one sees an actual distinction between 'this-worldly' and 'other-wordly' accounts of the Pure Land, it may sound as if you won't get into the Pure Lander heaven when you die in this world. However, if one sees all worlds as manifestations of emptiness, then such distinctions of time and place between realms becomes meaningless. So what does it mean then when in the 18th vow we read:

If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offenses and abuse the right Dharma.

(CONTINUE...)

If we look at (Mahayana) Buddhism more broadly, the teaching arises again and again that there is no attainment necessary. Buddhanature is. Sunyata is. Tathata is. The Tao is. So it's about acceptance and letting go of our own delusions rather than achieving or fighting our way through the ups-and-downs of the ego. For some, this is more readily perceived in Zen teachings and practice, for some in one of the Pure Land traditions, for some in Nichiren, or Tientai (Tendai), or one of the Vajrayana schools, etc. In the Pure Land traditions, we can say that Amida is, or the Pure Land is. There is no real separation from Buddhanature, Sunyata/Tathata, the Tao, Amitabha (Amida) Buddha, or the Pure Land, only delusion, specifically the delusion that we are truly separate and distinct from the rest of existence (failure to realize dependent-coarising) and that any particular manifestation of form is permanent and unchanging (failure to realize emptiness). This delusion is what fuels the ego*, and gives rise to greed, anger, and ignorance.

Hence, based on our conditioned existence and karmic burdern (the collective consequences of previous choices and causality), we may fail to see Buddhanature (not your Buddhanature, or my Buddhanature, or the dog's Buddhanature - just Buddhanature. Transferring it to the Pure Land example, when we are captured by delusion and manifesting greed, anger (sometimes I think hatred is a better choice here), and ignorance, we cannot hear Amida. Or in the more traditional Pure Land format, we cannot hear the cries of the world. We cannot see the Pure Land. Someone whose mind is so filled with greed, hatred, and ignorance that they would kill oneÂ’s own father, kill one's own mother, kill an arhat, injuring the Buddha, or cause strife and division in the Sangha, is unable to realize his or her own Buddhanature or see the Pure Land. Only one who has extinguished the roots of the three poisons and sees reality-as-it-is beyond the fictions created by delusion can do so. But as rebirth of form is a continual process, emptiness teaches us that a person is never 'the same' from one moment to the next, so while during that manifestation of form clouded by ignorance one may not have realized the Way, the path is always before them.

The precepts cannot be broken, just sometimes laid down. We can always choose to pick them up again. The Pure Land (or Buddhanature, or reality-as-it-is, etc) is never gone, just sometimes forgotten. We can always choose to accept it again.

Amitabha!

*my use of the term is as 'a sense of true separation from everything else' or '(a sense of) identity (based on this perspective)' as opposed to 'a reasonable description of an individual' or '(a) label (for a particular ephemeral subset of the continuum of form)'

What are the refuges & precepts and why take them?

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and I was asked the following question(s). I thought they were very good questions, and while I already answered them in private the answers are appropriate to the record of my practice being kept here on this blog.

Would you mind explaining more about the process of taking refuge and the lay precepts? What made you decide to take that step, or do you feel it is just a natural progression for you? What does it entail? If you don't mind sharing.

The process varies from tradition to tradition, school to school, and at times even lineage to lineage, so what you read elsewhere might sound the same or different. First, for the Ch'an lineage my teacher is connected with, there would be three basic vows that are a part of any other set of vows, which are sometimes called the Three Pure Precepts:

• Cease to Do Evil
• Do Only Good
• Do Good for Others

I personally think these can also be understood as "Do not cause unnecessary suffering or act out of greed/anger/ignorance", "Do that which promotes well-being", "Promote the well-being of others."

Anyway, I got that from the website of one of the abbot's root teachers, and when I asked the abbot about taking vows he mentioned them as well. The Refuges are very common in Buddhism. Basically,

• I take refuge in the Buddha
• I take refuge in the Dharma
• I take refuge in the Sangha

Again, my own understanding of what they means follows. The first vow honors the Buddha as the root teacher of all the traditions, schools, lineages, etc. and is a show of appreciation for the lessons he provided. But also if refers to our own Buddha-nature, taking comfort in recalling that we are all unrealized Buddhas and we all have access to our Buddha-nature of limitless wisdom and compassion. Dharma can refer to dozens of things from "law", "phenomena", to the teachings of the Buddha. I think most see the latter as the primary referant in the vows. As with the Buddha, we honor those teachings and their use in the vow. Of course, the Sangha refers to the Buddhists we practice with but also in another sense all sentient beings, the "big sangha" as it were, as everyone is just a Buddha waiting to happen.

I think that the refuges are the most common basic practice of "becoming" a lay Buddhist. It is basically just a public announcement, as it isn't an oath to a God and there is no baptism or anything. Of course, anyone can do it anywhere and any time, teacher or no teacher, sangha or no sangha. I think that doing it with a particular teacher signifies perhaps an appreciation for and a non-binding committment to that teacher, a ceremony that provides instruction as well as a sense of belonging or joining. In some traditions it's only "official" under a variety of circumstances, especially for example some of the forms of Buddhism practiced in Tibet.

Now, beyond both the Three Pure Precepts and the Three Refuges are what are normally called "the" Precepts (the three pure ones are kind of considered the basis or genesis for all the others, which just spell the pure precepts out in more specific circumstance). They are sort of progressive, again, and vary a little from group to group. The first five are the so-called lay precepts. You don't have to take them when you do the Refuges, but if you haven't take then Refuges you generally take them when doing the lay precepts. You will often see them written as something like:

1. I will refrain from lying.
2. I will refrain from intoxicants.
3. I will refrain from stealing.
4. I will refrain from sexual misconduct.
5. I will refrain from killing.

I have also seen these discussed with more depth. In particular, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism does an excellent job of this (and I usually don't care much for those books). For one thing, note that you are choosing to do this--it isn't a "thou shalt" or "shalt not". Also, at depth, it's more like:

1. I will refrain from unskillful (read harmful/deceptive) speech--I will think before I open my fat mouth.
2. I will be skillful in consumption--I will consider what I put into my body and its effect on my health and how I behave.
3. I will be skillful in how I give and receive--I won't take what isn't freely given and I will be gracious and appreciative of what is freely given.
4. I will appreciate the power of sexuality and use it in a physically, emotionally, and mentally beneficial way in a loving relationship.
5. I will consider all the acts I perform and how they affect the life and death of other beings--I will conduct myself in a way that maximizes respect for the life of all creatures.

Now, a shramenera, or novice monk (also called a lay monk because he still owns a home, has a regular job, doesn't live in a monastery, etc.) would take another five vows for a total of ten. A fully ordained monk may take over 40 vows. I was there last summer when my sangha's local leader took his vows as a novice monk. The abott told him (and the rest of us) that the vows cannot be broken. We may drop them or lay them down, but we can also choose to pick them up again.

It's interesting to note that the abbot doesn't overtly advertise or suggest taking Refuge or Lay Precepts, so I was the one who approached him about the issue. I knew a little about vows from my investigation of Buddhism and I've asked him a bit about it, but I don't actually know what will happen or when.

As far as why I would ask him about undergoing such a ceremony, that is a good question. I think part of it is the fact that I really find the practice to be a rewarding challenge. It is very hard work and as the abbot says, "We make no guarantees". It reminds me of Morpheus from The Matrix--"All I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more." In fact, being open to the possibilities is a part of what being mindful is all about, so there is no "final" conclusion in Buddhism anymore than there is only one person in the world or only one moment in a lifetime. Which keeps it interesting. Another part is that I really respect the underlying philosophy--the ethics and metaphysics are very much in tune with my sensibilities, unlike when I was in Christian churches (and again, unlike there, in my sangha there is an open Q&A afer every dharma talk to challenge or question what has been said). And along with that, as a social creature we are more effective when we practice and work with others rather than solo. Yet another part is that I think it is good for my ego and general contrarian/skeptical nature to participate in an ancient and beautiful ceremony, bowing to the ten direction, doing prostrations, etc. And again, unlike my days in Christianity, where I managed to avoid baptism even when I was an avid believer because I didn't appreciate the gesture and felt almost compelled to "be" Christian, I am actually *choosing* to be a part of this group and through it learn to more fully connect to humanity as a whole. Or something like that.