The Five Precepts Collected Essays by Dr. Paul Dahlke, Bhikkhu Sīlācāra, L.R. Oates, and G. Constant Lounsbery Buddhist Publication Society Kandy • Sri Lanka The Wheel Publication No. 55 First Edition 1963. Second Impression 1975. ISSN 0068–3345 2 BPS Online Edition © (2008) Digital Transcription Source: BPS Transcription Project For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted and redistributed in any medium. However, any such republication and redistribution is to be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis, and translations and other derivative works are to be clearly marked as such. 3 The Five Precepts Pañca Sīla 1. Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. 2. Adinnādānā veramaṇī, sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. 3. Kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī, sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. 4. Musāvādā veramaṇī, sikkhā-padaṃ samādiyāmi. 5. Surāmeraya majja pamādaṭṭhānā, sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi . 1. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from killing living beings. 2. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from taking what is not given. 3. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from sexual misconduct. 4. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from false speech. 5. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain 4 from intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness. 5 The Precepts in Buddhism Dr. Paul Dahlke here are five precepts in Buddhism which are T binding on all who call themselves Buddhists. They are: Not to take the life of any living being. Not to take what is not given. Abstaining from sexual misconduct. Abstaining from wrong speech. Abstaining from intoxicants. These precepts are not commandments in the Christian sense. There is no divine law-giver who raises a threatening finger from behind the clouds. These precepts are self-given rules of conduct, which the individual voluntarily accepts and endeavours to keep—not to please a God, but for bringing himself morally into conformity with the results of his thinking. 6 Hence the precepts begin with the following words: “I take upon myself the rule of training to abstain …” This is repeated for each of these rules. The Judaeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not kill” reads in Buddhist formulation: “I take upon myself the rule of training to abstain from taking the life of living beings.” From the wide domain of hair-splitting casuistry and theorizing we arrive here at a quite unambiguous mental fact: whether some act of taking life constitutes, morally, legally or conventionally, “killing” or “murder,” this may be a matter of argument, and sometimes of a vain argument. But the phrase “Taking the life of living beings” is unambiguously clear. Whether the individual can observe that precept in all situations of life is another question. But if he cannot do it, he will, in any case, know that he has transgressed a self-given rule: he will have a bad conscience and will again and again endeavour to do better in future. The Judaeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not steal” runs in its Buddhist version as follows: “I take upon myself the rule of training to abstain from taking what is not given.” What we said about the first commandment applies here too. Whether any appropriation of another’s possessions can be called “stealing” may be arguable. But if we say, “Not to take what is not given,” that is clear and anybody knows 7 what it implies. The bonds in which that injunction holds him are strict but unambiguous. The Judaeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery” reads in its Buddhist formulation: “I take upon myself the rule of training to abstain from sexual misconduct.” Here, too, the self-given rule of the Buddhist is much broader and more definite. Someone may refrain from adultery and yet he may not be avoiding any other kind of sexual misconduct and be very far from a pure life. And it is that purity which alone matters if the concern is not only with setting up social barriers and protected fences, but to elevate morality in general. The Judaeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not lie” is formulated in Buddhism as: “I take upon myself the rule of training to abstain from false speech.” What was said about the first and second precept holds good here also. What an enormously ambiguous thing is the concept of “telling lies”! But any hair-splitting about it has lost its ground as soon as one no longer clings to the concept, but adheres to the facts. Everyone knows what it means: not to use false speech that is not in accordance with the facts. Present social conditions, however, have made enormously difficult the strict observance of this precept in particular. The so-called “conventional” or “white” lie has for almost all of us become a kind of expedient for protecting us against 8 the brutalities of modern life. Even he who endeavours to lead a good Buddhist life will sometimes find it very hard to do without that expedient; but it makes a great difference whether one does something with a good or a bad conscience. If it is done with a bad conscience, one will constantly fight against it; and if one’s social conditions are such that this inner fight does not yield an external success, then one will try to change these circumstances by returning to more simple conditions of life which do not require such an elaborate apparatus of conventional untruths. But if that too proves impossible, one will at least cherish a longing for those simpler and more truthful conditions. Much is gained for inner progress if a man is dissatisfied with himself; and this will be the case when he knows that his life is not in harmony with his self-given rules of conduct. As to the fifth precept “I take upon myself the rule of training to abstain from intoxicants,” there is no equivalent of it in the Judaeo-Christian code of morality. Christianity in particular shows in this respect a truly astounding indifference, the result being a laxity of morals as has never prevailed in any other religion. The grape was one of the most important products of ancient Palestine, and wine a necessary part of the daily meal. Though Christ censured gluttony, he did 9 not see anything wrong in drinking wine. He himself set the example of wine-drinking in one of the most important acts of his career. Hence it is not surprising that already in the early Middle Ages, monasteries were prominent in grape cultivation and later in the manufacture of special liquors and spirits. To repeat: Buddhism has no commandments or prohibitions with a God as authority or prime mover, but self-given precepts which are a necessity for everyone who knows life as it really is and who has the courage to draw the moral consequences from that knowledge. If I have understood life as it really is, I have also understood that I am committed to those self-given precepts. For any act of violence towards other living beings, any appropriation of what is not given, any unchastity, any false speech, and any partaking of intoxicants, debases and contaminates my own conditions of existence, gives undesirable stimuli, and imparts impulses for a downward path; in brief, it does harm to myself. Whether through an evil act I am doing harm to another, I cannot always know. If this were to be the measure of our actions, there would sometimes be excuses for violence, untruth, theft, unchastity and gluttony, and under certain circumstances, they may even be regarded as praiseworthy. But this is not what matters. The moral needs of the world would be fully satisfied if everyone 10 would measure one’s actions with the consequences one has for oneself, and not for others. To be able to do that, one must have a realistic philosophy of life. And to have that, one must be a Buddhist. Being a Buddhist, one will soon understand: even if the good or bad results of my deeds take effect nowhere else, they will take effect in me, the doer, necessarily and unavoidably. For, I do not have these actions as a quality of mine, but I am these actions myself, and am nothing but my actions. Hence I myself shall become the result of those actions, shall grow myself into these results. This will have to be comprehended well for enabling one to put into practice a morality that is in accordance with actuality and with the ethical postulates resulting from actuality. Even if one does not possess the inner strength to live up to these ethical postulates, one’s comprehension will have removed the possibility of having a good conscience in the violation of the precepts. Through that fact alone much is gained for one’s future development, and by patience, earnest aspiration, and repeated attempts at perfecting one’s morality, some progress will be attained in times to come. The goal stands before us: clear, sure and definite, independent of a God’s acts of grace and compassion, a goal worthy of man’s dignity and attainable by 11 man’s effort. If I make progress, it is by virtue of my own strength, because I have thought intelligently and have put these thoughts into practice energetically. If I do not make progress and slide back, it is because I have thought unintelligently and acted accordingly. If I realize that this is so, then I must just try to do better in future. That is all. Abridged translation from the German Neu- Buddhistische Zeitschrift, Sommerheft 1918. 12 Exhortation Dr. Paul Dahlke y dear friends, you are so very keen on doing s something good for the world, for mankind! But why not, for once, do something good for yourselves? To be sure, what is good always remains good, must always show itself to be good, irrespective whether you practise it towards others or towards yourself.