L I F E S T Y L E  ··  L A Y   P R A C T I C E

R E S O U R C E S

Sila - Morality

keep them clean

honest truth

otherwise

There is a separate menu section dealing with this topic - The Five Precepts - but I thought it worth offering a few general reflections here. This may mean some repetition but the issue is an important one to engage with if any progress is to be made in the spiritual life.

The Pali word sila originally meant simply conduct. But in the context of spiritual training it signifies a particular kind of conduct - good conduct, and by extension, the type of character for which such conduct stands - good character.
Hence sila means both moral conduct, a body of habits governed by moral principles, and moral virtue, the interior quality the regular observance of these principles produces.
• The main support for keeping precepts, living a moral life is sense restraint. The ongoing pursuit of pleasure can easily provide the context for compromise - if I just bend things just a little bit then the gains will be great; far greater than the (apparent) loss. The eyes will easily undertake infidelity in cohorts with the mind; the nose will stick itself into all sorts of business; the mouth will let out all sorts of noises in support of the body's requests. Guard the senses well with mindfulness.

Keeping precepts and living the householders life is difficult; there is often regular encouragement to do exactly the opposite: 'how can a business succeed against the (dishonest) competition if it is honest?' However, one may indeed achieve material gain by immoral means but the result in the heart is not peaceful. There is a line in a Neil Young song - goes like:
"looking in the rearview mirror - seeing a police car - Oh, how my paranoia increases"

Which ever way you personally choose to define 'good and evil' there are definite consequences of following either. The basic reference point in Buddhism is 'do good, get good - do bad and your nose will drop off (or something like that - I forget the Pali original). This theory is not difficult to put to the test:
• Spend a day breaking the precepts - punching people, taking their things, messing about with their partners, telling lots of lies and general bad language, turning up for work drunk. What is the result?
• Try the opposite - being kind to everyone, giving them gifts, respecting relationships, being honest and offering praise, having a clear mind. What is the result?

What makes keeping precepts questionable, or not so pressing, is that many times we seem to 'get away' with breaking them. The consequences aren't immediate so how can we know that losing our watch on Wednesday is because of what we did last Saturday night? Usually we can't. However, reflecting on the principle of kamma [see TEACHINGS] - 'do good, find your nose - doo doo bad and it stinks' - so we are a bit more careful of what we do.

Behind all the suggestions on behaviour lies the critical factor of intention. Did you deliberately do it?
• The results of our actions depend a lot on intention. Sometimes we have no alternative - say through work or peer group pressure - and we have to bend or break a precept. We assess the gain and loss around standing on principles and try and apply wisdom. This is not suggesting it is OK to break precepts but is allowing some space for real life in a society that often doesn't support keeping precepts. A question monks sometimes get asked:
"You are sitting with your mother and a maniac rushes in with a knife to kill her. Would you kill the maniac to save your mother?"
I'll let you know when it happens.