Have you ever wondered what your life would look like now if you only kept precepts?

The Christians have their Ten Commandments and the Buddhist have their five basic prohibitions against lying, killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and taking intoxicants, but when I reflect on my life, I can zero in on two, sexual misconduct and taking intoxicants, that if I had paid attention to, I would have avoided every pain I have caused myself and others, as well. It has taken ten years of sobriety and celibacy for me to appreciate how simply I could have negotiated around significant obstacles in my life.  But, far be it from me to preach ‘goodness” and “morality” and “ethics” to anyone. Preachers have well demonstrated the ineffectiveness of that approach. But I do think it is worth investigating the reasons their preaching falls on many who will only rebel.

I lived by the book through my twenties and a taste of thirties, immaculately, and felt unrecompensed, and rebellious and eventually showed it by breaking the norms I had accustomed myself to and exploring those I wasn’t. What I found over the ensuing years was that I really was happy during my puritanical years but didn’t recognize it until I had something to reference it against. Years of wine, women, and psychedelics gave me the baseline I needed, but it took a decade of their abuse for the baseline to be useful.

Whether it be scriptural authority, parents, mentors, or anyone we turn to for guidance, is it not a wonder that we don’t question why we are turning to such “authority?” The rebel Buddhist dharma master, Gedun Chophel, tells the story of two Muslims debating with one another whether or not it is OK for them to eat camel meat. They can’t decide and go to a camel herdsman. The herdsman says that according to the Koran, it is “OK.” Now, upon hearing the herdsman’s words, they are relieved and satisfied.

Is it not silly? What insight have the Muslims gained by knowing that the Koran says it is OK to eat camel meat? Is it not possible another book somewhere forbids eating camel meat? Moreover, even if all the books in the world said it was OK to eat camel meat, they all could be wrong! Just because books say it is “OK,” is it? Why not ask a camel, and see what she has to say?

As soon as we are trying to justify a doubtful behavior or condemn it, we are on the wrong track. We will end up dealing with the problem in a contrived way and will know it. We will never be satisfied, whether abstaining, or indulging. Rules are just taking position “for” or “against “and any stance taken for or against something is a “position” in relationship to that thing and is inherently contrived. How can we feel a contrived position?

Can it not be the case that in certain stages of our development it is best to avoid certain things or behaviors and at another it is OK? How can there be a “fixed” dharma? If we just look around, we can see others thriving in a lifestyle which would destroy us, while we may be living a lifestyle that would destroy another.” Right” and “wrong” cannot be anything but contextual. As soon as we hear a preaching of an “absolutely “right’ or “absolutely” “wrong” we know that teaching is assuming an extremely biased position.

A person with strong desire for sex, who carelessly breaks any heart in its pursuit, would probably become a better person living by the “book” until he gets over his selfishness. But, a shy, inhibited young person brought up in a domineering Christian household forbidding any play outside the playground, will never get over her inhibitions following the “book.” She must break away, take a few hard knocks (no pun intended) and return to the “book” when she is ready. If she does return, she will return better and stronger.

The “book” or ‘dharma” is not to support our insecurities or create strong biases about what is “right” or “wrong.”  The dharma is a guideline to help us find our way through the jungle of afflictive emotions, strong desires and attachments, and all the delusional ambitions that these create. Ideally, we would all live by the dharma and be content, but in the real world, we may have to keep it as a goal and build ourselves up to it. It may be that “father knows best,” but we are not going to find that out listening to father.

Believing in precepts is a bit like believing in Santa Clause. If you are a good little trooper, you will be rewarded. But how many good little troopers are rewarded? How many become disillusioned like I was, and fall into foolishness? Look at how false “holiness” has destroyed the most admired leaders of our religious institutions, not to mention their followers. Rules are not meant to be followed blindly without investigation. Why should they work? What are the supposed to accomplish? How can they make me a better person?

Could it not be the case that moral and ethical injunctions are targets to be worked towards rather than prematurely adopted restrictions? Would we not be more likely to achieve their lofty standards working with them in the context of the reality of our own life, rather than in an unrealistic authoritarian way?

When I look back on two very different ten-year periods of my life, when I kept rules, and broke rules, the ten-year period of indulgence is the one I would rather erase from the slate. For all its momentary pleasure, I have nothing to show for it. Moreover, I hurt others and myself.

While I think a life by the book doesn’t work well, I feel an indulging one works less so. Both are undesirable. However, it is only now after having lived both that I am able to see this. Do I think everyone should live both? I don’t know. But I feel both are better than either one individually.