How to explain importance of sila?

Discussion
21

Consistency / congruence - reducing the gap between the beliefs (about cause and effect) and values I espouse vs. the beliefs and values implicated by what I actually do (beliefs in action). For most of us such gaps are common – the absence of gaps being the exception. Being congruent means acknowledging that typical practice falls far short of “best practices”.

It’s also important to appreciate the difference between adhering to a set of sila, behavior standards, ethics, etc that come from the “outside” and the sila that I personally believe are true, valid, effective and useful. I believe the dharma invites us to make a free and informed choice about sila. I hear “be an island unto your self” in that context.

Congruence between espousal and action implies a level of accuracy / skill in self assessment. That is, seeing things as they are for what they are.

It’s a form of intellectual integrity.

Note however that my values may not align with the values suggested by the precepts, other people, a group or general society. In such cases the congruency I’m thinking of means that my alliance is first to my personal precepts – I privilege my values.
This potential gap may explain why Buddhist precepts – except for some monastic rules – are often interpreted more as principles or strong guidelines rather than strict rules.

This may or may not be radical … but I advise that one won’t go too far wrong by assuming that the best of western philosophy, scholarship and psychology about personal behavior is aligned with the Buddha’s dharma.

3 Likes
22

@Feynman, a great deconstruction of being able to recognise the differences in values and beliefs between ‘self’ and other, and even as you say between what one says (public facade) and what one actually does. :slightly_smiling_face: It’s a wonderful skill and habit to have, and I’ve found this to be of fundamental importance in understanding dhamma, and lessening of suffering .

:anjal::dharmawheel:

3 Likes
23

Explanations of the benefits of sila is one thing, but personally I find demonstrations of how it is beneficial to carry more impact.

This then becomes a deeper understanding than just intellect.

For example, it is quite easy to demonstrate the different effects of right speech v/s harsh speech. I’m sure each of us have multiple examples everyday of how following the N8fP has tangible benefits.

It would be lovely to hear about any examples from anyones own daily practice. :smiley:

:anjal::dharmawheel:

3 Likes
24

I’ propose that for many adults the demonstration of the benefit of sila already exists in their own experience. So when sila is framed as consistency and congruence between ones espoused beliefs (example: New Year resolutions) and beliefs in action one needs just to point it out.

The record of remarkable responses (by a few at least) to the teachings as recorded in the EBT’s seem to support the power of pointing out the truth already within our experience.

25

Beliefs and values aren’t fixed. Hopefully, if the path is working for someone, these values should develop further- and lead to greater concordance with the five precepts in one’s personal life. This could be characterized as the development of Right view from Wrong view (which requires Right mindfulness and right effort, as per MN117 mahacattasarika sutta).

We aren’t expected to be born with the values that accord with the 5 precepts, as our value judgements are likely to be coloured by defilement driven survival instincts rather than that which leads to Nibbana. At the core of precepts of the Noble ones is the concept ‘is this helpful for me and others as well’. This often requires a great deal of empathy and an ability to reflect on physical and emotional fall-out from breaking precepts (not to mention karmic ones).

1 Like
26

Leading by example is always a good approach.

2 Likes
27

Abusive speech, it seems -destroys concentration.

He engages in abusive speech. He speaks words that are harsh, cutting, bitter to others, abusive of others, provoking anger and destroying concentration. AN10.176

2 Likes
28

I think we need to understand clearly first. I would talk about ‘ethics’, if they are native English speakers, rather than ‘morality’. Ethics are developed by various organisations and groups for safe operations. I believe ethics has the same purpose, to make society a reasonably safe place to live. Image if there were only no intentional killing of other people, how much less suffering would be in the world.

By my study of Dhamma and Vinaya, we should clarify the Five Precepts (Pañca-sikkhāpadāni) from the Five Ethics (Pañca-sīlāni?) - sīla (singular) is a mental quality to be developed and cannot be gotten from another, sikkhāpadāni - precepts can be gotten from anther.

The traditional Five Precepts also seem to cover two aspects spoken of in Vinaya: Sīla (ethics) and (Sam)ācāra (good habits). These are made very clear for the monks: sīla is covered by the Four Defeats avoiding (my paraphrase): intentionally killing a person, stealing another’s livelihood, sex with a woman, spiritual fraud. Avoiding other lesser actions in these areas are called ‘good habits’.

When one considers the context of the monk’s life, the sexual rule becomes understandable. If a monk has sex with a woman and she falls pregnant, he should leave the community to take care of his new family, otherwise there would be a lot of suffering for her, the child and himself. Other lesser sexual actions would be reversible.

Avoiding intoxication is a minor rule for the monks and would be classed under ‘good habits’ rather than ‘ethics’. So I would use the same classification for the laypeople, otherwise the laypeoples’ practice would be harder than the monks’ on this point.

The Kalama sutta lists only the first four, like the Four Defeats of the monk and has ‘not leading others into these actions’ as the fifth. I take this as a sign that the drinking precept was swapped for the Kalama Sutta’s fifth, later in Buddhist history. The Kalama sutta’s fifth introduces the scope of community into the precepts, which was a criticism from the Mahayana of Hinayana practice (only for oneself).

Killing a person would be unethical, immoral, dusīla for a monk.
Killing a mosquito would be a bad habit.

This makes sense if the purpose of Sīla is to make a reasonably safe society for human beings. This does not mean that other living being are not as important, but it matches the natural rule that any creature looks after its own kind before another kind, to ensure the survival of it’s kind. This is the same principle taught in the Dhamma: ‘I look after me and you look after you, that way we will be successful together’.

hope that is helpful
best wishes

2 Likes
29

I just recently ran across this essay by Paul Graham, a notoriously amoral Silicon Valley investor, explaining why being good is a good business strategy: Be Good

1 Like