[CAxrrAYN]

I was just reading an excerpt from Thich Nhat Hanh's book - Freedom Wherever We Go: A Buddhist Monastic Code For The 21st Century - and it said this on the Precepts:

The Buddha said, “Although I have given you precepts for this particular time and place, if you come to a certain place and the laws of that land are different, you should not use the precepts that have been given to you here. You should not practice in a way that goes against the laws of the land where you are living.” The Buddha also said, “There may be precepts I have not yet devised, but if you come to a part of the world where they are needed then you have to devise these precepts.”

Where does this teaching come from? Are there other Suttas that mention the flexability of the Precepts?


Another Excerpt:

"THE GOAL of the Revised Pratimoksha is to respond to the current needs of the Sangha and protect the individual monks and nuns. This does not mean to say that it cannot be improved in the future. In fact, it is only by doing exactly this that we will be practicing according to the spirit of the Buddha, for the Buddha himself improved many precepts. Let us look at the precept not to kill. At first this precept prohibited monastics from killing people (Is this true? Only Monastics?), but when some monks killed themselves, the precept was revised. These unfortunate monks heard the Buddha’s teachings on the impurity and impermanence of the body, and they began to feel tired of life. Therefore they said very negative and pessimistic things like “What is the point of living? I might as well kill myself.” Responding to this situation, the Buddha added that if we encourage people to kill themselves, if we praise killing, if we have the idea that it is good to kill, then we are also breaking the precept. In other cases, sometimes the Buddha would eliminate a precept altogether if it no longer had a role to play. This is why it is important to allow the precepts to ripen over time, improving them constantly. We have to make them really serve the Sangha. Every ten or twenty years, they need to be revised. We should not be too proud and think that this Revised Pratimoksha is perfect. It still has weaknesses.In the future, people might say: “This precept was made by my teacher and by my elders so you cannot change it.” But this is going in the opposite direction from what your teacher wants, from what the high monks and nuns who made these precepts want. You have to continue this work and improve the precepts so that they are more applicable to the time and place in which you are living."

[ringsarcle]

I have not seen this spoken of the Buddha before.
Are you sure its his words?

I am kind of agree that we have to respect other cultures laws but in my eyes i dont think we need to adapt them in to our own practise as long we are in that culture. just respect it and try to understand their way of living.

The thinker

[HotboTgameR]

Here's a copy of that Revised Pratimoksha: http://www.nashvillemindfulness.org/..._Bhikshus.html Perhaps worth looking through, but the Buddha is not recorded as saying those lines in any early source of which I'm aware.

[Crazykz]

There is one line in this quote that states, if it's the law of the land. At times, some Precepts, not the first 4 for sure, are socially acceptable.
The 5th Precept was spoken after a monk became drunk and showed heedlessness for the first 4. But The Buddha and Ananda took care of the monk until he sobered up.

The only time I know of that the first precept is accepted in Buddhism, the Mahayana school, is in places where food is not able to be grown. As in high altitude mountains or possibly the arctic areas. In these cases, meat/fish is the only source of substance for survival.

The following quote is from http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm

1) To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. This precept applies to all living beings not just humans. All beings have a right to their lives and that right should be respected. Where is killing of humans acceptable as the law of the land? I guess if you were born into a head hunter/cannibal tribe it would be acceptable to these cultures. But really what's the chance of that.............

2) To undertake the training to avoid taking things not given. This precept goes further than mere stealing. One should avoid taking anything unless one can be sure that is intended that it is for you. Where is stealing the law of the land and considered right?

3) To undertake the training to avoid sensual misconduct. This precept is often mistranslated or misinterpreted as relating only to sexual misconduct but it covers any overindulgence in any sensual pleasure such as gluttony as well as misconduct of a sexual nature. Where is it ok to rape, molest a child or take someone else's spouse?

4) To undertake the training to refrain from false speech. As well as avoiding lying and deceiving, this precept covers slander as well as speech which is not beneficial to the welfare of others. Again, where is this considered right? Lying to harm others in every culture I can think of at this moment, has a punishment for it.

5) To undertake the training to abstain from substances which cause intoxication and heedlessness. This precept is in a special category as it does not infer any intrinsic evil in, say, alcohol itself but indulgence in such a substance could be the cause of breaking the other four precepts. I will admit in some cultures in the East, it is customary to do what your superiors are doing when you are with them. Example: you're out to eat with them and they are drinking, in this context to avoid a social custom would be unproper, so you have a drink not to insult this cultures system. Or if alcohol is used in a medicinal context.
The Buddha never said anything about not using a substance as medication. He said to not use it to excess and cause heedlessness.

Other than that I can see some of the other Precepts for monastics being "bent" such as the wearing of jewelry, dancing and perfumes if the culture they're in finds these things necessary and to not do them would cause an insult to the people and in turn cause the Buddhist monastics to be outcast and never have the chance to teach the Dharma.

I'm guessing this question is about the first Precept, which it seems many members here and on other forums, want to find a reason to say it is acceptable in "these certain cases".
In all I've read and discussed with many people the precepts are just the right way to live. They are not a commandment, "a you must do", they are a choice by each individual to follow as a Buddhist or even one who just considers themselves a follower of the Dharma.
We each tread our own path, and in doing so we learn/see with each step what the right thing to do is.
Some paths are more muddy and uphill than others, but one must keep on the path to find the truth in what they believe.

With Metta

[Reocourgigiot]

i am not sure if it it related to TNH's quote, but in the Pali Mahaparinibbana Sutta, it is reported:

If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules.

DN 16 i think history shows these minor rules can pertain to matters such as the rules for nuns (bhikkhunis), designed for their safety. today, some of these may not be so necessary, if safety can be assured

even possibly digging the soil & growing food, such as in some Mahayana schools, where monks struggled to obtain food from alms

[wmzeto]

I was just wondering if there was any quotes on the precepts in general. Because like our discussion on this forum for the justification of violence/killing, I thought it would make sense for the Buddha to mention rational self defense, or somewhere that the precepts are just general guidelines, and not to be taken as strict doctrine in any and every case.

And that is silly to give a precept to all living beings, because there are alot of beings, animals, that simply will not survive without killing prey. That is just the nature/biology of many predatorial animals/insects.

[DP5Ups8o]

I was just wondering if there was any quotes on the precepts in general. Because like our discussion on this forum for the justification of violence/killing, I thought it would make sense for the Buddha to mention rational self defense, or somewhere that the precepts are just general guidelines, and not to be taken as strict doctrine in any and every case.

And that is silly to give a precept to all living beings, because there are alot of beings, animals, that simply will not survive without killing prey. That is just the nature/biology of many predatorial animals/insects.

I'm afraid I'm lost here - who is giving precepts to animals ? How would they understand them ?

The 5 precepts are usually for lay Buddhist practitioners and are written here with a commentary afterwards.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/d...pancasila.html


The 8 precepts can be found on this page and theres a link to the 10 precepts at the bottom.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/d...atthasila.html

[Peertantyb]

I'm afraid I'm lost here - who is giving precepts to animals ? How would they understand them ?

at this link, Buddha mentioned animals can realise the four noble truths

[Itrtuawh]

at this link, Buddha mentioned animals can realise the four noble truths

Well any animal with sufficient enough intelligence can understand that being hit is suffering, the cause of that suffering is growling at a child, and the cessation of that suffering would be possible, the possibility being not growling at the child anymore.

But to say that the precepts are for animals would be the kind of mythological nonsense that should be discarded or tucked deep away in the history of Buddhism.

[gydrorway]

Moderators Note:

Please, try to keep the answers to questions away from debate between other members in both the Introductions and Beginners forums

The Beginners Forum's aim is just to give general information and guidelines about basic Buddhist teachings to people exploring Buddhism.

Opinions and personal ideas can be discussed in the other forums on the website.

[Glipseagrilia]

For coping with the precepts -five, eight or ten- it is important to keep in mind the way the teachings of Gotama Buddha are build, so the precepts. To take the precepts into life there is needed meditation, ethical conduct and wisdom.

Through meditation the mind becomes more sensible to thoughts and actions about cheating, lying, killing (or the idea of killing), taking intoxicants, harming, stealing, etc.

As we develop wisdom and discernment we undertake actions and develop conducts -ethical conduct- that prevent us from killing, harming, taking intoxicants, lying, cheating, stealing.

As we approach arhathood precepts are less as guidelines or strict observance and more a way of existence.

[RalfDweflywex]

I was just wondering if there was any quotes on the precepts in general. Because like our discussion on this forum for the justification of violence/killing, I thought it would make sense for the Buddha to mention rational self defense, or somewhere that the precepts are just general guidelines, and not to be taken as strict doctrine in any and every case.

The Buddha, being Enlightened when He gave the 5 Precepts for the lay followers and the ordained, said these are the way to live a morally proper life. We as humans always want to have exceptions to the "rules" we're given. They don't make sense to us as we are ignorant. As I understand the Precepts, there is no room for exceptions. Killing, no matter why, is killing, stealing no matter why is stealing.......ect

And that is silly to give a precept to all living beings, because there are alot of beings, animals, that simply will not survive without killing prey. That is just the nature/biology of many predatorial animals/insects. The animal realm, is a lower realm where no positive Karma can be gained. But by chance, as the animals that live in my home, they can hear the Dharma and possibly it helps their bad Karma to ripen quicker. This is from the Mahayana view.

I really suggest studying and meditating to help realize that there is no exceptions to the teachings/precepts they are the truth. I mean no disrespect to you in saying that many of your posts keep seeking justification for violence or killing. In Buddhism as I understand there is none.

With Metta

[r7rGOhvd]

i am 100 % agree vith you Theseeker1. it was very good said . and it all make sense .

[pseusawbappem]

The Buddha, being Enlightened when He gave the 5 Precepts for the lay followers and the ordained, said these are the way to live a morally proper life. We as humans always want to have exceptions to the "rules" we're given. They don't make sense to us as we are ignorant. As I understand the Precepts, there is no room for exceptions. Killing, no matter why, is killing, stealing no matter why is stealing.......ect



The animal realm, is a lower realm where no positive Karma can be gained. But by chance, as the animals that live in my home, they can hear the Dharma and possibly it helps their bad Karma to ripen quicker. This is from the Mahayana view.

I really suggest studying and meditating to help realize that there is no exceptions to the teachings/precepts they are the truth. I mean no disrespect to you in saying that many of your posts keep seeking justification for violence or killing. In Buddhism as I understand there is none.

With Metta

If there are no exceptions to the Precepts, then how do you feel about these...



The one who had to steal food at a market because there is no other option, no money to purchase it.

The one who had to kill to defend themselves, because they were given no other option by the other.

The one who had to lie to save their life, or that of anothers, for example, in Nazi Germany, when the S.S. were hunting down all the jews, and the friends of those who hid them, would lie about where they were at.



There are many examples of where an exception is needed. To deny exceptions, would result in more suffering then it would to use them, in many scenarios, that happen every day.

If you say there are no exceptions, then you would never break them yourself? Ever?

That person didn't have to steal the food, they could have simply died off.

That person didn't have to kill the other, they could have simply let the other kill them, even if it would result in further death, like say that of their loved ones.

That person didn't have to lie, they could have told the truth, at risk of causing suffering to themselves, or many others.


Wouldn't it make more sense, be more rational, to add to the end of each of the precepts "...unless absolutely necessary."

[ananciguinter]

Wouldn't it make more sense, be more rational, to add to the end of each of the precepts "...unless absolutely necessary."

Maybe, but that's not how the Buddha phrased the precepts. Why concern oneself so much with making exceptions? Live your life however you wish to live it - just don't try to change the Buddha's teachings to fit your preferences.

[Senasivar]

Maybe, but that's not how the Buddha phrased the precepts. Why concern oneself so much with making exceptions? Live your life however you wish to live it - just don't try to change the Buddha's teachings to fit your preferences.

Why did people bother trying to change the minds of racist america?

Why did does Richard Dawkins go around having debates with Monotheists?

Why do we protest against goverments? Why do people occupy wall street?


Because there just are some things that are hurtful to a society on a whole, such as telling a poor Buddhist family that it is never okay to steal, that it is better to die then support your family with any means necessary such as stealing. Such as telling the Buddhist man not to defend his family, when doing so would result in the continued existence of them. Such as telling the Buddhist that it is never okay to lie, even if not doing so would result in many deaths, and much suffering.


Of course I will continue to believe what I believe. But to never question something that would seem irrational in one situation, but perfectly fine in the general sense, would be hurtful to Buddhism on a whole.

[triardwonvada]

Maybe, but that's not how the Buddha phrased the precepts. Why concern oneself so much with making exceptions? Live your life however you wish to live it - just don't try to change the Buddha's teachings to fit your preferences.

Yes, the addition of "unless absolutely necessary" seems redundant.

If one understands the Buddhas teaching on causality and Kamma then one is going to be be careful when making decisions on how to act mindful of the results.

The precepts are commonly translated "I undertake the rule of training..." rather than "I vow to obey the commandment..." I'm not sure whether this is because the former is a more accurate translation, or is an interpretation.

There have been times I've chosen to break the spirit or the letter of the precepts and I think the most important point of the Buddhas teaching is that I must take full responsibility for those choices and the causal/kammic results.

So I think it's primarily about taking personal responsibility, but if in doubt follow the guidelines.

[Gabbavnf]

Hi Bodhisvasti,

I think this whole thing about the precepts - and especially the one about killing - is just going round and round in circles now, and I really can't see the point in continually arguing about it here, because the precepts are as they are and this is a Buddhist website. You either accept them or you don't, its up to you - and you take the responsibility for that yourself.

You might like to have a look at Constitution for Living by P.A. Payutto and at Section 1 - People and Society. 3. The Virtuous Person.

http://www.budsir.org/Part2.html#3

with kind wishes

Aloka

[SasV7ReJ]

No need to go to extremes. Why not focus on your own decisions and be content with that? The precepts are not commandments issued for the purpose of being obeyed. Take what you want from them, but don't try to claim you know best and only your view is the "rational" one.

The Buddha was not ignorant of the types of issues we face today. If he intended to make exceptions, he would have been clear about them. Instead, he focused on the here and now, not on speculations about possibilities.

[ruforumczspam]

Yes, the addition of "unless absolutely necessary" seems redundant.

If one understands the Buddhas teaching on causality and Kamma then one is going to be be careful when making decisions on how to act mindful of the results.

The precepts are commonly translated "I undertake the rule of training..." rather than "I vow to obey the commandment..." I'm not sure whether this is because the former is a more accurate translation, or is an interpretation.

There have been times I've chosen to break the spirit or the letter of the precepts and I think the most important point of the Buddhas teaching is that I must take full responsibility for those choices and the causal/kammic results.

So I think it's primarily about taking personal responsibility, but if in doubt follow the guidelines.

Hi Bodhisvasti,

I think this whole thing about the precepts - and especially the one about killing - is just going round and round in circles now, and I really can't see the point in continually arguing about it here, because the precepts are as they are and this is a Buddhist website. You either accept them or you don't, its up to you - and you take the responsibility for that yourself.

You might like to have a look at Constitution for Living by P.A. Payutto and at Section 1 - People and Society. 3. The Virtuous Person.

http://www.budsir.org/Part2.html#3

with kind wishes

Aloka

Yes, I love that link, Aloka!

And I think the whole issue I have, what it really comes down to, is when a Monk or Teacher, or anyone, tells another that there is never a justification for 'not abstaining' from them, and then go one step further as to pretty much label the person that does, a sinner. Similar to that of the catholic church. That can hurt people on a big level. It becomes a strict doctrine that hurts the Sangha, more then helps it.

Just one final question. What is the purely 'literal' translation of the final given precepts, given at the time of the Buddha in the Pali Canon? Was it 'abstain', or simply 'do not'?