retrofuturist wrote:Is sīla the same or different for layfolk and bhikkhus?
Yes and no, there are different considerations for both, but a core ethic which is recommended and can be seen in the first and last two precepts of the five precepts. the third due to it changing I omit from the core group, however as its widest function is to promote healthy relationships between the sexes, and its narrower function is to detail how that relationship should be, it is expanded and covered by several rules in the Patimokkha.
Might the "parameters" of sīla (as presented in the Suttas and Vinaya) yield different recommendations?
yes, the sila of the vinaya is purely designed for Monks and Nuns, so only ever consider the workability for them, this is why ruled can have several edits, and even be rendered next to pointless, no matter why the rule came about.
Might the recommendations be different based on the precepts you've taken - 5, 8, 10, 227 etc.
for the five and eight the recommendations are the same, where the precept overlap, and the 10 and monastic precepts are the same where the precept overlap/have a common theme, but for mendicants of any level there are other rules they have which may or may not be applicable to both/all.
The vibhangha to the first parajika gives Bhikkhunis the allowance not to follow rules not shared by both groups and this could in theory be applied to Samanera/i given that novices asked the buddha what were the rules they were to follow in the culavagga.
These seem to be important distinctions to call out in light of this conversation, lest we inadvertently jump between the two lifestyles without notice, or without calling out and acknowledging the distinction in the first place.
Where there are overlap in the rules I feel the more detailed versions for monks and Nuns can inform the other group, but always the consideration of whether it is applicable to the lifestyle needs to be considered.
so I hope this helps...
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill