Western Buddhists and the Precepts/Morality

[Heterodox Garden]

I would like to start a dialogue on "Western" Buddhists (of course all true Buddhists are "just Buddhists," but this relates more specifically to those from non-Asian backgrounds, or who have grown up in Western nations) and the precepts. I think this is an important, yet also prickly, area that deserves more discussion and reflection.

In my experience, one reason a large number of Western Buddhists cite as an innital attraction of Buddhism is that (as it is often said, true or not) "Buddhism has no concept of sin." Many are fleeing the guilt-saturated, heavy-handed "fire and brimstone" teachings of the Abrahamic religions, and they see Buddhism as more....welcoming, perhaps, and less censorious on a moral level. This is, of course, a debatable point. I personally believe that the Buddhist concepts of "transgression," breaking of vows, etc. are very different from the Abrahamic concept of "sin," yet the moral strictures imposed upon every Buddhist are no less serious. I also think this is a very difficult concept for most Westerners to come to grips with, for a whole host of reasons.

As you doubtless are aware, from its very conception all forms of valid Buddhism have acknowledged the "three baskets" of Vinaya (moral teachings), Sutra, and Abhidharma. Mahayana places special emphasis the threefold division of "morality," "medtiation/practice," and "wisdom." The three are equal in importance and all must be practiced. Yet I see so many Westerners de-emphasizing the moral aspects of Buddhism, again perhaps because it reminds them of the unattractive elements of Abrahamic morality that led them to Buddhism in the first place. Or perhaps they are confused about what it means to uphold vows, to practice Vinaya, to be "moral" in a Buddhistic sence. There is also certainly a paucity of English/Western language writing on this subject, while bookshelves and internet servers groan under the weight of Western writing on practice and wisdom/theory.

Buddhist repentance can be very severe. Buddhist prostrations, repentence rituals like the Omizutori rite still carried on in Nara, Japan, and Vajrayana strictures on upholding the vows are all very strict, very demanding. Buddhism contains not just one Abrahamic hell but multiple hells, whose horrors are exquisitely and disturbingly described in numerous texts. All this can be scary for Westerners steeped in a culture saturated with the notions of "original sin" and the like.

I would like to use this thread to discuss any aspect of these issues you wish. All input on the topic from any angle is welcome. I think there is a lot to talk about here. How can Westerners gain a better, healthier, and more doctrinally accurate understanding of Buddhist morality and the precepts, as well as repentence? How can we integrate this better with our practice and theoretical understanding of Buddhism? How can we become true upholders of the precepts without slipping into neurotic Abrahamic notions of "sin"? Again, all input and discussion of other facets of this topic welcome.

[Caodemarte]

I think these are very good points about US Buddhism (as defined in the OP) at least (I do not know enough about other Western countries to say). There often seems an expectation that manifesting a natural, spontaneous enligtened nature is somehow different from manifesting morality or is the same as letting free our baser instincts. Like many bullies we sometimes even justify our egotistic actions as "teaching" or "helping" the victim out of compassion. This is not a problem unique to Buddhism, of course, but we need to realise that we are not immune from it.

I find Buddhism tremendously helpful, and may be too emotionally sensitive to this. However, it really breaks my heart when I see Buddhism being used to jusify acts from rudeness to bigotry to cruelty to assault.

[Wayfarer]

I think it's a myth that there is no concept of sin in Buddhism. Klesa and asava are both functionally equivalent terms. Furthermore, many of the traditionally-oriented Buddhist teachers would be quite moralistic, but because of the circumstances in which Buddhism came to the USA, in particular, that kind of sensibility was usually deprecated in favour of a kind of liberalistic and individual-oriented ethic. In the 1960's Buddhism had to be "cool" with counter-cultural values, which included very non-traditionalist attitudes towards sexual behaviours - after all the sexual revolution was in full swing. And another factor was that, as purportedly celibate monastics play such a large role in Buddhism, they were often very naive about sexual behaviours and sexual politics, in my view. Finally, I think many of the Western converts to Buddhism, especially in the 60's, were from a counter-cultural background, and assumed a very freewheeling attitude on such questions - otherwise it wouldn't be cool.

(It's interesting that another Eastern cultural movement that became prominent in the 1960's, namely the Hare Krishna, was much more explicitly conservative around question of sexual ethics than Buddhism.)

That said, there is one enormous difference between the Semitic (Jewish/Christian/Islamic) religions and Buddhism, which is the former don't emphasise self-understanding or 'direct seeing'. If you look into the Augustinian doctrine of 'original sin', it is fraught with a sense of the total helplessness of humankind to overcome the consequences of the mythical 'fall'. Now Buddhism also has the idea of 'beginningless ignorance' which can be mapped against the idea of the Fall. But the cardinal difference between the two attitudes is, that the Christian puts it in terms of volition - the corruption of the will - while Buddhism addresses it in terms of cognition - the corruption of understanding. And that is a fundamental difference, in my view. That is why in Buddhism, you are able to seek remediation from your kind of inherent karma, through insight into the chain of dependent origination. Whereas in most Christian schools, you can only ever be saved by total obedience and submission to the authority of the Church. (There are exceptions, but the influence of Calvinism is especially pernicious in this matter, in my view.)

So I know I've made some big statements there, but that is the tendency of my thought about it at this point.

[石正 Marcus]

I would like to start a dialogue on "Western" Buddhists....
I also think this is a very difficult concept for most Westerners to come to grips with....
Yet I see so many Westerners.....
All this can be scary for Westerners...
How can Westerners gain a better, healthier, and more doctrinally accurate understanding of....

In my experience making this completely false divide into westerner/something else is not useful at all.
Rather than talking about what "westerners" do/ think/ feel/etc, why not talk about your own experiences with Buddhist precepts and morality?
That would be a much more useful discussion surely?

[Caodemarte]

I would strongly disagree with the description of redemption in Christanity, bit agree with the comments on Buddhism. Of course, Buddhism teaches morality. We just tend to somehow ignore those teachings or deemphasize them to our own detriment. Do we need to insist on more public censure of those who go off the rails? Do we need more robust criticism? Is there a partial solution other than just watching our own conduct?

[skittles]

Buddhist morality and precepts are based on a bigger picture of the results of actions, some of which are circumstancial. A Buddha doesn't dictate the results of our actions or make sure people get the results of their actions.

Abrahamic religions don't have a concept of moral standards. You can say a particular passage is a moral standard, but on every major point like killing, stealing, raping, or lying there is a passage where god either explicitly ordered it or it went unpunished and uncriticized. I'm sure almost everyone here is too young to remember when homosexuals were murdered, arrested, tortured, and lobotomized by Christians in the 1940's. Homosexuality was only removed from the list of clinically recognized mental illnesses in 1973! Or when bi-racial couples were beaten by the members of their churches and their darker skinned lover murdered. Or when the bible was used to assert it was a right of white men to take Africans as property. People lost, and continue to lose, their lives to stop Christian mobs from terrorizing others in the USA. I can't imagine it is different for Muslims or Jews based on international news.

Just today one of my relatives in the Bible Belt called me out of the blue to tell me I was evil because i live in California because her megachurch cult leader said so. She was furious about it too. She lost her house a few years ago because she decided to tithe to her megachurch instead of pay her mortgage. The megachurch doesn't do a lick of actual charity and the people running it are multimillionaires while she's worked hard her whole life to end up sleeping on someone's couch. I've told her in the past, if she's willing to pay people to make her angry she should pay me to tell her about my career in politics.

[narhwal90]

Coming from the SGI after 28 yrs practice "inside" I am entirely ignorant of so many sutras, its been fun binge-reading. I was reading a couple of the Ten Karma sutras, Bodhisattva Precepts and Vaipulya Sutra on this topic. In all the SGI-supplied readings & study topics I don't recall ever hearing such precise specification of behavior and consequences- the treatment of sex being particularly relevant. But back to the "Western" perspective, I found the detail and lack of the "thou shalts" refreshing & I find myself thirsty for the wider world of sutras.

[Heterodox Garden]

Thank you everyone for your contributions so far.

I would like to start a dialogue on "Western" Buddhists....
I also think this is a very difficult concept for most Westerners to come to grips with....
Yet I see so many Westerners.....
All this can be scary for Westerners...
How can Westerners gain a better, healthier, and more doctrinally accurate understanding of....

In my experience making this completely false divide into westerner/something else is not useful at all.
Rather than talking about what "westerners" do/ think/ feel/etc, why not talk about your own experiences with Buddhist precepts and morality?
That would be a much more useful discussion surely?

In response to the above:
With all due respect, I think its enormously useful and important to have this conversation. It's not a "false divide" at all. Consider how Buddhism changed both temporally and spatially as it moved from India through places like China, Nepal, Tibet, Southeast Asia, Korea, and Japan. In all cases, every aspect of practice and often theory changed tremendously -- we have Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajayana, not to mention the sub-schools. Think of the differences between, say, Southeast Asian Theravada and Japanase Nichiren Buddhism. "Expedient means" change with time and place. As Buddhism moves into the West, it will likewise change. Is it some politically correct taboo to talk about this? Because nobody blushes discussing regional differences of Buddhism within Asia.

As for talking about my own experiences, its funny, but if you look at the grammar of what you quoted, what I wrote by definition comes from my own experiences. Beyond that, I can tell you that I'm a westerner who has been living in Asia for multiple decades, but I don't see this as very germane to the larger issue of how Buddhism changes as it flows around the globle.

[石正 Marcus]

I can tell you that I'm a westerner who has been living in Asia for multiple decades

Yes, me too. So, are we "westerners"? What does that even mean?
Likewise, 40% of the population of London was born outside of the UK, many in Asia, so what does "westerner" mean?
And if you take all the senteces in which you wrote "westeners" and replaced it with "asians" you'de be booted off this forum within hours for being racist.
I just don't think it is a useful or helpful distinction.
If the distinction you are after is actually that between Christianity and Buddhism then just say that (most Christians aren't "western" after all)
But enoguh from me. All the best for a fruitful discussion.

[Wayfarer]

'Western culture' does have a meaning, or many meanings. As products of a modern culture, and of western culture, we have characteristically different ways of understanding the world than those from other times and places, and I think it's important to reflect on those differences, and to be aware of them. Often such ideas will appear as things that 'everyone knows'. I mean, for example, 'everyone knows' that the world is made of atoms. There are many such ideas that are common currency and no more so than with respect to questions of ethics. And I think a lot of what is regarded as common knowledge in today's world, about such things as ethical questions, can and should be called into question. That's what I interpreted the OP as intending.

[jundo cohen]

Lovely topic,

From my perspective as one Practitioner, it is not really a matter of "east vs. west", nor even of "Buddhism vs. Judeo-Christianity". In all religions and societies, one can find all manner of people with all manner of interpretations of religious morality. For example, in Judaism, one finds very ultra-Orthodox practitioners who must strictly maintain hundreds of injunctions, for that is what their heart needs. Other more "liberal" practitioners may take a more ambiguous, worldly path yet also uphold the importance of ethics and morality in their way. Likewise in Buddhism, many good paths suited to different walkers.

However, without exception, the basics of ethics and morality are vital to this Buddhist way, whether one follows 227 or 16 Precepts or 5 ... all come down to a kind of Buddhist Golden Rule: Live as you can avoiding harm, and nurturing health and well-being, for oneself and others (oneself and others, "not two" by the way). Avoid killing, taking what is not given, misuse of sexuality, malicious speech (I believe that includes internet trolling ) and the like. In our Japanese Soto way, the "16 Bodhisattva Precepts" contain the heart of the entire Vinaya (of course, others interpret their Precepts in their own way), but really all are held within these basic injunctions known as the "Three Pure Precepts" which actually are part of the sixteen, phrased in various ways including ...

1. To seek as you can, in this body and life, to avoid doing harm
2. To seek as you can, in this body and life, to do good
3. To seek as you can, in this body and life, to live for the benefit of all Sentient Beings

Of course, some of us may disagree on the details of some of these (there is debate in Buddhism too whether the injunction on "not killing" or "avoiding the taking of life" includes abortion, war in national defense, meat eating, etc,). However, generally, we all know that to walk this path we must free our hearts from Excess Desire, Anger, Divisive Thinking and all accompanying negative emotions such as jealousy and spite. Otherwise, there is no attainment of the treasures of "meditation" and "wisdom" possible. Hells abound in this very life, and perhaps some coming life, for those who are prisoners of their own anger, greed and all the rest.

I don't know any Buddhist teachers in the West who are neglecting to teach the Precepts and the importance of ethics to their students (although unfortunately some teachers could themselves use a refresher course from time to time ), together with meditation or whatever other practices they emphasize. All tend to go hand in hand. It is just that the details and flexibility of what those ethical injunctions require do vary from group to group. Folks disagree on details, but may agree on the wider points (e.g., everyone agrees that killing is wrong, but may disagree on whether one can protect one's own children in self-defense or serve in the military etc. etc.).

Gassho, trying to be good, Jundo

[石正 Marcus]

However, without exception, the basics of ethics and morality are vital to this Buddhist way, whether one follows 227 or 16 ...

Wonderful post, thank you.
The Buddha-dharma is relevant to all people everywhere, and the path of refuge and precepts open to all.
But yes, if making and working through distinctions is important in people's paths and practice, then I bow to that too.
May all beings be well, may all beings be happy.

[maybay]

I would like to start a dialogue on "Western" Buddhists (of course all true Buddhists are "just Buddhists," but this relates more specifically to those from non-Asian backgrounds, or who have grown up in Western nations) and the precepts. I think this is an important, yet also prickly, area that deserves more discussion and reflection.

In my experience, one reason a large number of Western Buddhists cite as an innital attraction of Buddhism is that (as it is often said, true or not) "Buddhism has no concept of sin." Many are fleeing the guilt-saturated, heavy-handed "fire and brimstone" teachings of the Abrahamic religions, and they see Buddhism as more....welcoming, perhaps, and less censorious on a moral level. This is, of course, a debatable point. I personally believe that the Buddhist concepts of "transgression," breaking of vows, etc. are very different from the Abrahamic concept of "sin," yet the moral strictures imposed upon every Buddhist are no less serious. I also think this is a very difficult concept for most Westerners to come to grips with, for a whole host of reasons.

As you doubtless are aware, from its very conception all forms of valid Buddhism have acknowledged the "three baskets" of Vinaya (moral teachings), Sutra, and Abhidharma. Mahayana places special emphasis the threefold division of "morality," "medtiation/practice," and "wisdom."

Since when are the three trainings a Mahayana favourite? It's Hinayana 101.

Buddhist repentance can be very severe. Buddhist prostrations, repentence rituals like the Omizutori rite still carried on in Nara, Japan, and Vajrayana strictures on upholding the vows are all very strict, very demanding.

Isn't everything in Japan severe?

I would like to use this thread to discuss any aspect of these issues you wish. All input on the topic from any angle is welcome. I think there is a lot to talk about here. How can Westerners gain a better, healthier, and more doctrinally accurate understanding of Buddhist morality and the precepts, as well as repentence? How can we integrate this better with our practice and theoretical understanding of Buddhism? How can we become true upholders of the precepts without slipping into neurotic Abrahamic notions of "sin"? Again, all input and discussion of other facets of this topic welcome.

Without getting too carried away with moral relativism, we should always remember the dependent origination of all things, including morality. Wisdom takes the edge off any overwrought perspectives on morality.

[maybay]

I would strongly disagree with the description of redemption in Christanity, bit agree with the comments on Buddhism. Of course, Buddhism teaches morality. We just tend to somehow ignore those teachings or deemphasize them to our own detriment. Do we need to insist on more public censure of those who go off the rails? Do we need more robust criticism? Is there a partial solution other than just watching our own conduct?

Morality is not a problem for which there is a solution. It's like doing the dishes. If you don't do them, then there's a problem.

[maybay]

Yes, me too. So, are we "westerners"? What does that even mean?
Likewise, 40% of the population of London was born outside of the UK, many in Asia, so what does "westerner" mean?

The dominant civilizational thrust is toward economy, rather than dignity. In other words, the tendency to lose merit through the attritive effects of greed and ill-discipline is stronger. Also, public justice is favoured over private judgement, which is taboo.

And if you take all the senteces in which you wrote "westeners" and replaced it with "asians" you'de be booted off this forum within hours for being racist.

Westerners in general also exhibit a more polarized sense of political correctness vs political ignorance. But I get your point. Reductionism can become restrictive. It might be better to speak of the western sense of political correctness with reference to colonial histories and the success of democracy. It just makes conversation rather difficult if no-one has any patience with generalizations.

[muni]

Coming to Buddhism is usually by a complexity of habits, memories, culture, mentality and so on. By this Buddhism is seen through such glasses. These glasses can vary a lot. If we can use the conventional dharma to realize the dharma itself is great medicine but at the same time part of the dream, to awaken (mostly step by step), then all western, eastern, northers, southern and in betweens have never been. The dharma is a key inside the prison door to open that door and be free. Then the key has no further use. It can be very helpful to get an enlightened light on that key, to see it.

Morality through bodhichitta, as a charcoal is not becoming diamond, therefore is important part of purification. Freedom from speech, which I often hear, may use care, it should not be freedom from spitting whatever ideations around. That’s not so good for our morality part. Lol.

When there is no compassion, there is no wisdom, and then dharma can be very cold and hard used. This is giving freedom, our own peace no any chance, and by that neither our environment.

Only --o-o-- two glasses.

May peace reveal in each direction.

[seeker242]

How can Westerners gain a better, healthier, and more doctrinally accurate understanding of Buddhist morality and the precepts, as well as repentence?

First thing I would say would be to become aware of the assumptions being made based on comparison to other religions and then stop making assumptions!

How can we become true upholders of the precepts without slipping into neurotic Abrahamic notions of "sin"?

I would say by forgetting about Abrahamic notions, because they aren't relevant!

Although, most of the non-asian western Buddhists I have met don't encounter this problem of neurotic Abrahamic notions. They understand that killing, stealing, lying etc. is bad so they just don't do it. I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.

[Simon E.]

Could we have a definition of 'Abrahamic notions ' ? And examples ?

[kirtu]

Could we have a definition of 'Abrahamic notions ' ? And examples ?

One example would be the lesbian Buddhist who was turned away from a retreat at a western (pretty sure US) Zen monastery because she was known to the person at admission to be lesbian. This was reported in "The Turning Wheel" around 1987 or so.

It's been a long time since I read of this incident so it could be that she simply couldn't stay at the monastery overnight but could in fact attend the retreat. Either way she was singled out for being lesbian (so an imputed state of being in sin) rather than for a violation of the precepts (she had just gotten there so she couldn't have violated the precepts during her stay yet - and this was the fear projected by the person at admissions).

irt

[Jeff H]

In my experience, one reason a large number of Western Buddhists cite as an innital attraction of Buddhism is that (as it is often said, true or not) "Buddhism has no concept of sin." Many are fleeing the guilt-saturated, heavy-handed "fire and brimstone" teachings of the Abrahamic religions, and they see Buddhism as more....welcoming, perhaps, and less censorious on a moral level.

I relate to this statement, but not in the way it’s stated. I’d state this way: According to Buddhism we are absolutely responsible for our present and future conduct, but there is no blame attached to moral failings.

The cultural barriers and adaptations that apply to the westward movement of Buddhism are, IMO, incidental to the fact that it is coming here because a small but significant number of western converts are welcoming the truths we find in Buddhism, not because Buddhism is more welcoming than some alternative. I think there will always be only a small core of true practitioners in any religion – but I believe that is enough to ensure that the underlying power of Buddha’s teachings can survive the transition.

If you look into the Augustinian doctrine of 'original sin', it is fraught with a sense of the total helplessness of humankind to overcome the consequences of the mythical 'fall'. Now Buddhism also has the idea of 'beginningless ignorance' which can be mapped against the idea of the Fall. But the cardinal difference between the two attitudes is, that the Christian puts it in terms of volition - the corruption of the will - while Buddhism addresses it in terms of cognition - the corruption of understanding. And that is a fundamental difference, in my view.

Wayfarer’s position corresponds with mine, except for one minor point. I think karma is volition, but (and I think this is his meaning) immorality is volition arising from ignorance. Because it is volitional we can choose to change it.

I’m not looking at this question as a function of global trending because that gets mixed with trendy populism – which is a very different thing than the historical transmission of Dharma truths.

For me personally, the thrust of the westward movement of Buddhism does stand in contrast to Christianity. As a young kid in the 50s, I remember writing a journal entry in which I was acutely aware of looking for “something” but having no idea what kind of thing it was. I rejected the church my parents sent me to as a teen, but in that same period I had the first taste of what “it” might have been. A youth group leader in another church gave me a pamphlet called “A Game of Minutes”. The game was to spend the day saying a positive, silent prayer for every person you encountered. I did it for maybe two days and had a very positive reaction, I might even say an epiphany.

I didn’t stick, though, because I was still a restless, stupid kid. After that I spent many years looking in all the wrong places for “it” until returning to my original church 30 years later. At that time, I had a conversion experience and became quite a devout Christian for years. But it still didn’t answer my deepest questions.

When I first heard the Tibetan Dharma, I heard the tools to answer those questions: Immorality is action against my own best interests; Blame, shame, and retribution are not useful for understanding or correcting the reasons for immorality; There are useful views which can be understood; There are practical methods I can apply to correct immorality; Causality is universal; Consciousness is conserved; and Everything is subject to intentional change.

For me the western movement of Buddhism is about training to make the Game of Minutes a way of life. It’s about preserving the Dharma, not because of or in spite of any cultural baggage, but because I think there is something dreadfully wrong with “normal life” and Dharma provides realistic, realizable answers. Nevertheless, the process necessarily involves using this western-shaped life of mine to uncover and apply the meaning of the wisdom that has been so graciously dropped on my doorstep.