The Five Precepts

[camerata]

It seems strange that the Five Precepts we see today - the foundation of lay morality - have so many variations and don't appear as a group of five in the suttas. It's almost as if they were a later refinement of Buddhism. As shown on accesstoinsight they are:

1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

2. Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

3. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

5. Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

They appear as part of other groupings, such as (I think) the "10 wholesome factors" but the nearest reference I can find is in the Abhisanda Sutta, where they are grouped with the Three Refuges as "the eight rewards of merit."

I used to think the different versions we see of the Five Precepts were just different translations of the Pali but it seems there is no single place in the Pali Canon where a definitive version can be found.

[chownah]

Looking in the accesstoinsight index:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html

looking under "L" for lay precepts I found this link:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn...rel.html#layman

which contained the following:

Sn 2.14

Dhammika Sutta

Dhammika

(excerpt)

Translated from the Pali by

John D. Ireland

"Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).

"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.

"A disciple should avoid taking anything from anywhere knowing it (to belong to another). He should not steal nor incite another to steal. He should completely avoid theft.

"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife.

"Having entered a royal court or a company of people he should not speak lies. He should not speak lies (himself) nor incite others to do so. He should completely avoid falsehood.

"A layman who has chosen to practice this Dhamma should not indulge in the drinking of intoxicants. He should not drink them nor encourage others to do so; realizing that it leads to madness. Through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people."

Chownah

Edited March 14, 2007 by chownah

[GuestHouse]

They arise out of the same observation of what is good for the individual in society as the exact same precepts found in every other major religions.

[Grover]

breaking the precepts arises out of mind states unconductive to nirvarna, eg. desire/lust/greed and hate. they are rules that can be observed at the ground level to help control ones mind.

[camerata]

Sn 2.14

Dhammika Sutta

Dhammika

Thanks. I like this version, with its additional explanations. But again it's hardly the standard 5 Precepts we see everywhere. Nothing here about "sexual misconduct," for example. I guess various teachers try to distill the different versions into what they consider to be the essence.

[chownah]

Sn 2.14

Dhammika Sutta

Dhammika

Thanks. I like this version, with its additional explanations. But again it's hardly the standard 5 Precepts we see everywhere. Nothing here about "sexual misconduct," for example. I guess various teachers try to distill the different versions into what they consider to be the essence.

Doesn't this address "sexual misconduct"?:

"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife."

Chownah

[Yamantaka]

There are many, many version of lay vows. When I took them from Tibetan teachers, the were, in simplified version:

Not to kill

Not to steal

Not to lie

Not to participate in sexual misconduct (with a very long list of what constituted this)

Not to use intoxicants with attachment

[camerata]

Doesn't this address "sexual misconduct"?:

"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife."

Chownah

What I meant was that "sexual misconduct" is a very vague and all-embracing term while the above is quite specific. One can argue all day about what is included in "misconduct" but I don't see much to argue about either being celibate or not committing adultery. That's what I like about it.

This is the reason I brought the topic. You can see people debating the 5 Precepts on web boards everywhere but it seems a bit pointless if there is no agreed version of them. For example, with the above phrasing of the precept homosexuality is a non-issue but phrased as "sexual misconduct" it would be. And this kind of touches on the subject of how to keep the precepts. Generally there seems to be two views. The first is that we should look at the underlying intent of the precept and use that as a guide (because slavish adherence to the precepts can become an attachment). The second is that total renunciation has considerably more value in cultivating the mind than partial renunciation. For example, is it OK to have just one beer with a meal if it doesn't cause heedlessness or is that just letting the monkey-mind have its own way again?

Ajahn Brahm has a good answer for people with questions about the precepts. He says if there's any doubt you can fall back on two precepts: don't hurt yourself and don't hurt others.

[camerata]

They arise out of the same observation of what is good for the individual in society as the exact same precepts found in every other major religions.

They certainly are similar, but with Buddhist precepts the overriding reason for keeping them is the cultivation of the mind with the ultimate objective of attaining enlightenment.

[camerata]

While I was looking around for stuff on the precepts I found this very easy-to-read The Bhikkhus' Rules (A Guide for Laypeople). I couldn't help noticing that the origin of the precept prohibiting the destruction of vegetation was that a monk cut down a tree and the tree-deva living there complained to the Buddha about it.

[chownah]

Doesn't this address "sexual misconduct"?:

"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife."

Chownah

What I meant was that "sexual misconduct" is a very vague and all-embracing term while the above is quite specific. One can argue all day about what is included in "misconduct" but I don't see much to argue about either being celibate or not committing adultery. That's what I like about it.

This is the reason I brought the topic. You can see people debating the 5 Precepts on web boards everywhere but it seems a bit pointless if there is no agreed version of them. For example, with the above phrasing of the precept homosexuality is a non-issue but phrased as "sexual misconduct" it would be. And this kind of touches on the subject of how to keep the precepts. Generally there seems to be two views. The first is that we should look at the underlying intent of the precept and use that as a guide (because slavish adherence to the precepts can become an attachment). The second is that total renunciation has considerably more value in cultivating the mind than partial renunciation. For example, is it OK to have just one beer with a meal if it doesn't cause heedlessness or is that just letting the monkey-mind have its own way again?

Ajahn Brahm has a good answer for people with questions about the precepts. He says if there's any doubt you can fall back on two precepts: don't hurt yourself and don't hurt others.

I guess I don't spend much time reading various teachers' explanations of things if I can find the original words from the Buddha. If I remember correctly it seems that the Buddha encourages each of us to find out the truth for ourselves in our own practice. To me this means that if you want to learn the meanings of the precepts the best thing is to find what you think is the best translation of them and then try to determine what they mean through the study of how things happen in the world, introspection, and mindfulness of how things affect yourself. To me its not important to say whether this kind of sex or that kind of sex should be avoided but it is of the utmost importance to try to see how sex of any kind affects you....how it affects your mind, body, desires,....etc....how it affects your progress along the Path. As you progress you almost assuredly will develop a more refined understanding of why at least certain kinds of sex should be avoided for yourself out of your own experinece and observations.....could be you would end up giving it up altogther...maybe not....

I'm not trying to talk about sex here but rather about my view about how the precepts should be grasped....not as statements of "Thou shalt not" but rather as well informed hints as to where the dangers lie and where one would benefit by doing some clear reasoning and mindful introspection.

I'm feeling a full on preachy attitude coming on so I'll stop now.

Chownah

[Yamantaka]

Chownah, I think that was an excellent explanation. When people ask me about Buddhism, I tend to explain it as "Buddha said 'This is what I did and it worked well for me. If you think it might do you some good, try it.'"

Edited March 18, 2007 by Yamantaka

[PeaceBlondie]

I'm a Christian pacifist who hasn't studied Buddhism, but is this the place to ask about that first precept? If the first precept is "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world," then why do Buddhists participate in warfare? I have a quote from the Vietnamese spiritual leader, Thich Quang Do, that makes me thinks the anwer is "No, Buddhist should not support war." He says the Vietnamese Buddhists allowed their nationalism to come first.

[Grover]

I'm a Christian pacifist who hasn't studied Buddhism, but is this the place to ask about that first precept? If the first precept is "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world," then why do Buddhists participate in warfare? I have a quote from the Vietnamese spiritual leader, Thich Quang Do, that makes me thinks the anwer is "No, Buddhist should not support war." He says the Vietnamese Buddhists allowed their nationalism to come first.

nationalism coming first before religion seems to be the case here.

From what I know regarding the 1st precept, there is a range of negitive karmic effects from very bad to slightly bad...

Killing an Arahant - Killing ones parents - killing a "normal" person - killing an "evil" person, killing an animal, hurting a person, hurting an animal, killing a tree, etc...

If someone was involved in a war, and their job was to man an anti missile defense system - then I would think it does not break the first precept because they are simply involved in destroying machinery.

however, working for the military breaks the 8fold paths "right occupation"... I would think.

[camerata]

If the first precept is "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world," then why do Buddhists participate in warfare?

Well, I think this is the same as asking why, if one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill," do Christians participate in warfare? Clearly they shouldn't.

The same moral dilemmas seem to occur in both religions. I see the same kind of questions come up on Buddhist web boards, such as "Could I kill someone to protect my family from being killed?" etc. Most people would, I think, regardless of the karmic consequences.

[suegha]

If the first precept is "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world," then why do Buddhists participate in warfare?

Well, I think this is the same as asking why, if one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill," do Christians participate in warfare? Clearly they shouldn't.

The same moral dilemmas seem to occur in both religions. I see the same kind of questions come up on Buddhist web boards, such as "Could I kill someone to protect my family from being killed?" etc. Most people would, I think, regardless of the karmic consequences.

More interesting than the 10 commandments for Christians are the words of Jesus himself. "Turn the other cheek" for example, not being angry towards them etc. Or a quote from Romans "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink."

I, as a christian, will not participate in any of these things, many Christians (and I don't agree with them) say it's a matter of conscience. I can't see how it is.

[bankei]

If the first precept is "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world," then why do Buddhists participate in warfare? I have a quote from the Vietnamese spiritual leader, Thich Quang Do, that makes me thinks the anwer is "No, Buddhist should not support war." He says the Vietnamese Buddhists allowed their nationalism to come first.

The first precept is not to kill. War involves killing. Buddhists participate in war for the same reason as others, greed, delusion and anger. Not all Buddhists follow the teachings of the Buddha.

Bankei

[Yamantaka]

PeaceBlondie, you are correct. There is no justification in Buddhism for war as we know it. If someone comes into your house and tries to kill you, it's pretty certain that if you kill him while trying to protect your family, Buddhism would say that the karma you accumulate from that would be mildly negative, if negative at all. It would be parallel to the law: the paradigm is, "if you shoot someone dead on your front lawn, drag him into the house". The karma would be similar: if you can defend your family without killing, that is obviously better.

Remember there are four karmic aspects to every act. Even the Dharma has shades of gray.

There is a big difference between being a Buddhist and being a Buddha. A lot of westerners seem to think that taking lay vows or putting on robes should instantly bring enlightenment. If only!

The debate could arise from the idea of defending one's country. If we were all Buddhas, we wouldn't really care if one group of tyrants replaced another. But our delusions and our egos motivate us to perceive this as equivalent to losing our lives, so we justify armed defense. But I would be surprised to learn that there were many actively practicing Buddhists enlisting in the military.

[Yamantaka]

Jesus also taught some wonderful things:

Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

Jesus of Nazareth

Matthew 5:38:45

and

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

Jesus of Nazareth

Matthew 25:41-45

These are beautiful and immortal truths that sadly are ignored as often as the teachings as Buddha.

[suegha]

Very well put Yamantaka. I was reluctant to post so much detail. There are many other verses that could be quoted. I suppose most religions would have scripture forbidding going to war, killing, etc. The problem, as you alluded, is human nature. Really we should not be concerned with who runs our country, it does not help us on our paths.

[PeaceBlondie]

Let me please ask, if I may, if there's another parallel between what I'm going to call Christian pacifism or absolute non-violence, and its Buddhist 'equivalent.' When I discuss this with violent Christians who think their Scriptures are normative for behavior, they blank out, can't think, don't know, insist they must kill for family and kill for country, argue illogically, refuse to argue, etc., no matter what their Scriptures say. Are Buddhists the same?

[suegha]

Let me please ask, if I may, if there's another parallel between what I'm going to call Christian pacifism or absolute non-violence, and its Buddhist 'equivalent.' When I discuss this with violent Christians who think their Scriptures are normative for behavior, they blank out, can't think, don't know, insist they must kill for family and kill for country, argue illogically, refuse to argue, etc., no matter what their Scriptures say. Are Buddhists the same?

Interestng question PB, not sure if I fully understand though. I will not participate in war or vote in elections, etc. However, I would not call myself a 'pacifist'. For example, I would participate in a war if commanded by God, I'm not saying this would happen, just that that excludes me from being a pacifist.

I could also never say, 'no matter what scripture says'! As this is what happens when "Christians" choose to participate in these 'unscriptural' wordly things. I'm not sure what Buddhists will say (thoughts please...)

I also wish to qualify what I mean by not voting in elections etc. It does not mean that I don't have an interest in these things, quite the contrary! It's too big for this post, but it's clear from scripture that we sholdn't participate in these things. If you want the detail, please pm me.

Looking forward to replies from Buddhists.

[Yamantaka]

Let me please ask, if I may, if there's another parallel between what I'm going to call Christian pacifism or absolute non-violence, and its Buddhist 'equivalent.' When I discuss this with violent Christians who think their Scriptures are normative for behavior, they blank out, can't think, don't know, insist they must kill for family and kill for country, argue illogically, refuse to argue, etc., no matter what their Scriptures say. Are Buddhists the same?

I would say that the teachings of Buddha and Jesus are almost identical. From my reading of the New Testament, there is nothing in what Jesus taught that can be interpreted as "the Father said 'Thou shalt not kill. For exceptions, see paragraphs 6-29 subsections iv-xxiii'". It is the same in Buddhism. "Do no harm to any sentient being". That's what Buddha taught. For me, it takes a lot of imagination to change that to "pick up a gun because these guys say they want to kill us".

I had a serious conflict (verbal) with the directors of a Dharma centre where I was living. I was assigned to working the garden removing the weeds from a patch of vegetables. One of the teachers for whose teachings I have great respect is Geshe Rabten, who said that disturbing a sentient being's home/nest/hive was doing great harm by destroying the ability to function normally, in which I included taking care of the young.

I chose to carefully pull each weed by hand rather than use a hoe to chop the weeds and turn the soil. Once this was done I planned to heavy mulch which would smother the weeds, conserve moisture in the soil and even fertilize the soil as it decomposed. All without "doing harm". To me it was the perfect solution. This was not fast enough for the directors, who had other (fiscal) responsibilities to maintain the functioning of the centre. Hence the conflict.

Again, we should not confuse the "word" with the people reading the word. People are flawed which is why we try our best to listen to those we believe are not.