Such as?
Complete and utter devotion to Buddhism would require a much more monastic life. Consider materialism, the ability to tell the truth always, doing no harm to any other being, sexual misconduct.
I guess you just plain forgot about the Dalai Lama's statements about homosexuals and oral sex?
Your ignorance is profound.
I said there is a clear separate line between lay and monastic Buddhism.
Buddhism does not require giving up ones wealth and becoming an ascetic. In fact, Buddha says not to do this, because he did it for almost a decade. Giving up all belongings and subsisting on limited food does not equate to a good life. However, the other extreme: complete and utter materialism and decadence, with your every wish granted - which Buddha lived as a prince - is also not suggested. Buddhism suggests the middle way. It's not bad to own things as a layman, however, one should note that your favorite things won't always be there and it is best to not grow attached. It's fine to have a favorite cup, but if the cup breaks, or you knock it over, it's no longer there. This teaches the lesson of impertinence, one of the four virtues. The line between monastics and lay people are very clear and defined in Buddhism. The idea that you must give all material wealth and join a commune is a western myth only purported by ignorant westerners.
In summation:
Sexual misconduct means, basically: no rape, no having sex with people who are already married, no having sex with dependents. You can have sex with anyone you want so long as they're not one of these things. There are no absolutes. Telling lies, again, nothing is absolute. Lies depend on the context. If it's to save someone, it's fine. But it's to harm someone, it isn't. Buddhism is not dogmatic, and no killing is another non-absolute. Consider, your pet has fleas. If you were foolish, you wouldn't do anything to solve that because "well, I want to save all beings". No Buddhist is actually like this. Buddhism is practical. If your cat has fleas, and it's in pain, it's being attacked. Thus, the fleas must die. Again, it isn't an absolute. Where did you learn this about Buddhism?
As for the Dalai Lama, who cares? 1. there are three main sects in Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan. Dalai Lama is Tibetan. 2. Dalai Lama is not a pope of Buddhism, he doesn't set the rules, Buddhism says nothing about homosexuality, and Buddha himself flat out says to question every single thing someone tells you. 3. That's the Dalai Lama's opinion. Buddhism is not dogmatic, and as such, there is no rule here - which is the point. One could come up with their own conclusion. This is a big thing in Buddhist practice and tradition. 4. Tibetan Buddhists tend to have latent homophobia. This isn't because of Buddhism, because Buddhism says nothing about homophobia. It is ingrained in culture. 5. What does what the Dalai Lama say about oral sex or homosexuality have anything to do with an American Buddhist who practices Ch'an (zen)?
In two single sentences you have shown you know nothing about Buddhism.
