The primary, foundational standards for Buddhist conduct are the five precepts (pañcasīla) or the five rules of training (pañcasikkhapada). Since the precepts instruct us to refrain from certain actions, they can be considered as proscriptive and we uphold them by avoiding the acts they prohibit. This distinction is provided by Ācariya Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga, wherein acts to be performed are fulfilled through keeping and those we abstain from are fulfilled through avoiding. It should be noted, however, that while not upholding them have consequences it is not a canonical requirement to do so in order to be considered a Buddhist (see the page on Refuge).
These five precepts are (they link to their own pages):
These five precepts are repeated and grouped together multiple times throughout the canon. In the Verasutta (AN 5.174), the Buddha explains to Anāthapiṇḍika:
Householder, unless these five fears and enmities are given up, one is said to be unethical, and is reborn in hell. What five? Killing living creatures, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxicants of beer, wine, and liquor. Unless these five fears and enmities are given up, one is said to be unethical, and is reborn in hell.
In the verse above, the Buddha warns that one may be reborn in the hell realm for not avoiding these five acts.
Again in the Dhammikasutta (Snp 2.14), the Buddha explains the duty of a householder:
Now I shall tell you the householder’s duty, doing which one becomes a good disciple. For one burdened with possessions does not get to realize the whole of the mendicant’s practice.
They’d not kill any creature, nor have them killed, nor grant permission for others to kill. They’ve laid aside violence towards all creatures frail or firm that there are in the world.
Next, a disciple would avoid knowingly taking anything not given at all, they’d not get others to do it, nor grant them permission to steal; they’d avoid all theft.
A sensible person would avoid the unchaste life, like a burning pit of coals. But if unable to remain chaste, they’d not transgress with another’s partner.
In a council or assembly, or one on one, they would not lie. They’d not get others to lie, nor grant them permission to lie; they’d avoid all untruths.
A householder espousing this teaching would not consume liquor or drink. They’d not get others to drink, nor grant them permission to drink; knowing that ends in intoxication.
In the verses above, the Buddha expands the definition of the precepts to include neither encouraging nor allowing these acts.
In the Gihisutta (AN 5.179), the Buddha mentions upholding the five precepts as a prerequisite for stream-entry:
You should know this, Sāriputta, about those white-clothed laypeople whose actions are restrained in the five precepts, and who get four blissful meditations in this life belonging to the higher mind when they want, without trouble or difficulty. They may, if they wish, declare of themselves: ‘I’ve finished with rebirth in hell, the animal realm, and the ghost realm. I’ve finished with all places of loss, bad places, the underworld. I am a stream-enterer! I’m not liable to be reborn in the underworld, and am assured, destined for awakening.’
And what are the five precepts in which their actions are restrained? It’s when a noble disciple doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or consume intoxicants of beer, wine, and liquor. These are the five precepts in which their actions are restrained.
In the Rājāsutta (AN 5.178), the Buddha expounds on the benefit of upholding the five precepts in relation to secular laws:
“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up killing living creatures, and the kings have them arrested for that, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person has murdered a man or a woman.’ The kings have them arrested for killing, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires. Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?”
“Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”
“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up stealing, and the kings have them arrested for that …?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person took something from a village or wilderness, with the intention to commit theft.’ The kings have them arrested for stealing … Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?”
“Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”
“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up sexual misconduct, and the kings have them arrested for that …?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person had sexual relations with women or maidens under someone else’s protection.’ The kings have them arrested for that … Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?”
“Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”
“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up lying, and the kings have them arrested for that …?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person has ruined a householder or householder’s child by lying.’ The kings have them arrested for that … Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?”
“Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”
“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up intoxicants of beer, wine, and liquor, and the kings have them arrested for that, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘While under the influence of intoxicants of beer, wine, and liquor, this person murdered a woman or a man. Or they stole something from a village or wilderness. Or they had sexual relations with women or maidens under someone else’s protection. Or they ruined a householder or householder’s child by lying.’ The kings have them arrested for being under the influence of intoxicants of beer, wine, and liquor, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires. Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?”
“Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”
The five precepts are timeless guiding principles that were relevant then [at the time of the Buddha] and are still relevant now. All five acts are considered to be violations of some statute, custom, or standard in some way, shape, or form. Even the precept against intoxicants is applicable today with regulations pertaining to driving under the influence, but, even if not directly, intoxication often leads to mistakes and accidents, which can be criminal as mentioned in the sutta. Indeed, as mentioned in the sutta, we have seen them and heard of them, and we will hear of them again.
To conclude, the upholding the five precepts is characteristic of an ethical or virtuous lay follower, setting them apart from those who are not mindful of avoiding these acts, as stated in the Mahānāmasutta (AN 8.25):
“In what way, Bhante, is a lay follower virtuous?”
“When, Mahānāma, a lay follower abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, in that way a lay follower is virtuous.”
No comments:
Post a Comment