Talk:The Five Precepts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article The Five Precepts, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Indonesian politics dab?

What about Pancasila as the five principles of Indonesian politics? Adam 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a dab notice, but Sacca removed it on Sep. 28. I have restored it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The...?

The article is restored to the name of The Five Precepts, to keep it in order with The Eight Precepts and The Ten Precepts. ALso pancasila is rarely used, five precepts is frequently used. pancasila is a disambiguation page now. Greetings, Sacca 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use article titles that begin with "The ...".—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that The Eight Precepts article is now entitled Eight Precepts. Might this motivate a new assessment as to whether or not this should be moved to Five Precepts? With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual misconduct?

When reading the precept to avoid sexual misconduct, it jarred with what I'd read in a class text some months earlier. From what I read, sensual, rather than sexual misconduct is something to be avoided. This includes (but is not limited to) sexual misconduct, but also incorporates gluttony, sloth, anything which is an abuse of the senses. Who is right? I'm only a student and could well be wrong. 144.131.37.184 08:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing about sex. Please, get your minds out of the gutters of the other religions. Buddhism is NOT a religion.
This precept says "Do no exploit the passions". Think about it. Don't take advantage of someone addicted to crack or heroin, or someone who has a need for sex even. You can have sex, just don't make it a thing of exploit. That's just a good moral thing to do. Come on people. Love is love, and lust is lust, and we are all human. This precept doesn't stop anything but the exploitation of peoples' weaknesses. - unsigned post by User:80.186.94.41
Buddhism IS a religion. Unless you're talking about the white-washed western version that's little more than a self help method. Zazaban 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Buddhist tradition of the 5 precepts, as far as I know, the 3rd precept is always interpreted as sexual. Other interpretations referred to above are trendy modern ideas. Peter jackson 10:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Thanissaro Bhikkhu has translated kāmesu as "sensual" in the past (e.g., Thanissaro, 1997; and here's the Pali at "10. 4. 2. 10") although elsewhere I've seen Thanissaro (e.g., Thanissaro, 2005) and several other authors translate it as "sexual." If I may suggest, it might be of possible interest to take a look at the WP article Kāma for information and context that might support interpreting kāmesu as "sensual."
Personally, at times, I think it is valuable to think of kāmesu as "sensual" (e.g., along the lines of the paramita nekkhamma); but, in support of Peter's statement above, my recollection of various Pali Canon suttas is that, in each instance that this precept is expanded upon, it is clearly done so in sexual terms. For instance, even in the aformentioned Thanissaro (1997) translation where he translates kāmesu as "sensual," he expands upon it in this manner:
"...Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man." (AN 10.176)
Hope this might (belatedly!) help, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 precepts or 8 precepts

I thought that on a new moon day and a full moon day that lay buddhists kep the 8 precepts. is this not true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.86.186 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

For Theravada Buddhists, this is true. See, for instance, the WP article, Uposatha. As for Mahayana practitioners, I have no idea. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro & Pali-specific section?

I'd like to suggest three changes:

  1. Create an introductory section: I think this article's first paragraph is a very good introduction to the article -- if it would also simply include a summary of the Five Precepts along the lines of: "The Five Precepts are commitments to abstain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication." The subsequent paragraphs prior to the "Chinese version of five precepts" are of course extremely valuable but, for me, are no longer introductory in nature.
  2. Create a "From the Pali Canon" section: My main reason for this is that I'd like to include some information from the Pali Canon, e.g., as to why the Buddha asks his followers to abstain as opposed to making traditional commandments, per SN 42.8, Sankha Sutta (e.g., Thanissaro, 1999); or, what is meant by "sexual misconduct," etc. Given the article's current structure, it's not clear to me where it would be best to insert this information.
  3. Find citations for or delete the current third paragraph: The current third paragraph states: "The Buddha is said to have taught the five precepts out of compassion, and for the betterment of society. Thus they are to be undertaken voluntarily rather than as commandments from a god. The precepts are intended to help a Buddhist live a less complicated life, so that they can progress more easily on the Path." Some of this sounds like it could be from the Pali Canon, some from Mahayana texts, some from an earnest, beautiful, personal exposition. Any citations?

Thanks for any feedback. If I don't hear anything in a week or so, I'd like to go ahead and make the above changes. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, I changed one phrase only, something like “less complicated life” to “a life free from remorse” as it is the latter which supports concentration. Dhammapal 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
After over three months with no objections, I went ahead and implement (1) and part of (2) above. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Non-Dualism paragraph

I was bold and rewrote the non-dualism paragraph based on Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi. If anyone thinks there is a need for further clarification, let’s discuss it here. Thanks. Dhammapal 09:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi good-hearted Dhammapal - Consistent with WP practice, given the material's size, I'm including here the uncited material you deleted:
The precepts are often misunderstood by both "Buddhists" and "non-Buddhists". In the written form, the precepts appear to be similar to the Christian commandments. However, the first precept for example does not mean thou shall not kill. Rather, the precept of not killing highlights with deeper understanding that one cannnot see things in these terms. That is to say one cannot find anything fixed to call a victim, nor a specific entity that one can call a killer. In fact, one can find nothing fixed at all. It is this flux that the precepts point to. By engaging these precepts, one is engaging in the effort to be awake in the non conceptual, non dualistic reality.
Perhaps if a citation is found for such it could be reinstated in an appropriate section (e.g., Zen? Tantra? kinda brings to mind something like Eugene Herrigel??). Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reintroduced text

As far as I can tell this section above was removed because the view point wasnt agreed with rather than it being definately right or wrong. The problem with that is that what it says is fundamental to the teachings of a huge proportion of Buddhist thought. It shouldn't have been removed in favour of an opposing view. It should be put along side an opposing view. Non duality is central to Mahayana Buddhism and so I have modified it to show it is a view, rather than implied fact. Which view is more in line with reality is more topic for debate and perhaps the main article is the wrong place for pushing one over the other. It may be useful to people if they could see all the points for and against the argument for non-duality, but it might change the topic of the article. Perhaps it needs one of its own? As to the citations in the replacement for this paragraph, only point 5 is relevent. I have read the text it points to and it is clear that it is highly bias in its wording in favour of a Theravada view. A bias citation is hardly worthy of backing up a claim, which leaves it on par with the above section. I have therefore not removed it as it serves to make its point for one view, under the Pali Canon heading. Objections? --86.139.119.155 (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.119.155 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what appears to be the re-write:
The precepts are considered differently in a Mahayana context to that of the Theravada school of thought. To Theravada they are as they appear, but Mahayana schools consider this a beginners view. The reason for this is because Theravada rejects any realisation of non-duality in favour of the Pali Canon alone. In the written form, the precepts appear to be similar to the Christian commandments. However to the Mahayana schools, the first precept for example does not mean thou shall not kill. Rather, the precept of not killing highlights with deeper understanding that one cannot see things in these terms. That is to say one cannot find anything fixed to call a victim, nor a specific entity that one can call a killer. In fact, one can find nothing fixed at all. It is this flux that the precepts point to. By engaging these precepts, one is engaging in the effort to be awake in the non conceptual, non dualistic reality.
I think that there are still a few problems with it. Here are some that immediately pop out:
  1. no references (perhaps a reference to Robert Aitken's "Mind of Clover," e.g., where he refers to Hinayana/literal, Mahayana/compassionate and Buddha-nature/essential views?)
  2. to attribute the non-dualistic perspective to all Mahayana schools I suspect may be problemmatic
  3. "Christian commandments"? (Is the Book of Exodus in the New Testament?) (maybe referencing Judeo-Christian would suffice?)
Also, the phraseology sounds to me (admittedly, a Theravada practitioner) somewhat condescending or POV. For instance, my wife's geshe recently phrased it during a Dharma talk as: Theravadin Buddhists place a premium on causing "no harm" while Mahayana Buddhists prioritize compassion. This type of phraseology does not contrast one school as lacking another's thought but as emphasizing in a positive way the different perspectives. (Regrettably, I think WP rules would be bent too much if I were to reference a second-hand Dharma talk ;-) )
I haven't deleted the text because I think these items are fixable. I'd like to suggest moving this paragraph from the introduction to a subsection though, given it's length compared to the rest of the intro.
Just some thoughts,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I've convinced me. I'm gonna take the IP-addressed user's re-inserted text out of the intro (also change "Christian" to "Judeo-Christian" and perhaps throw in a Aitken ref) and take good-hearted Dhammapal's text from the Pali text section and stick them both in a new section, entitled something like "Sectarian interpretations." I hope this more closely approximates fairness ;-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Five Precepts apply as much to the arahant as the layperson

Hi Larry, The point was that the Five Precepts apply as much to the arahant as the layperson and not the other way around. This sentence was following the non-dualism part about “crazy wisdom”, the idea that enlightened people don’t have to follow the precepts.Dhammapal 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi good-hearted Dhammapal -
Here's my Edit Summary associated with my most recent edit that you just reverted:
reasserted initial ordering of layperson -> arahant; the gist of the sentence (see the start of sentence) is that no matter how far you progress, you are bound by moral codes
Sounds to me like we are intending to say the same thing (I wonder if you can see that?) but we hear the English differently. Perhaps, we can deduce, that, in this very specific instance, as your way of writing sounds wrong to me and my way of writing sounds wrong to you, others will similarly misread our intent regardless of whether we stay with your words or mine. Perhaps if one of us has the time and interest we can try to find a mutually agreeable different wording? Though, for me, at this moment, I'm too time-constrained to pursue this further. As you know, I was really just trying to help you out to begin with, at your request.
Be well,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The wording here may be rather misleading. It doesn't even occur to an arahant to break the precepts. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag on "would rather day than intentionally kill an insect"

Someone put a fact tag (citation needed) on my edit:
“An arahant would rather die than intentionally kill an insect”
I don’t have the source handy, but it was actually that a sotapanna would rather die than intentionally kill an insect. I think this sentence clarifies the difference in wording regarding the layperson and arahant issue.Dhammapal (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dhammapal -
I put the fact tag on that statements. (I wanted to indicate such in the Edit Summary but ran out of room. In hindsight, I should have taken the time to identify my tagging your statement here on the talk page. Sorry for not having done so.)
I fact-tagged the statement because the notion of a noble one ever developing the intention for their own (or another's) death seems somewhat curious to me. I'd be interested to see what citation you find. Thanks for the education. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest source for verbatim 5 Pali precepts?

Does anyone know for certain the earliest source of the exact 5 Pali precepts as stated in this article (which replicates how they are shown in various contemporary puja manuals, e.g., Ven. Eligirye Indaratana, 2002, p. 2) ? For instance, are they in the Pali Canon? I'm aware of the following:

  • these training rules are mentioned in a variety of canonical discourses but, in such contexts (e.g., where they are often identified as part of a greater-than-five set) are phrased differently than as stated in this article (e.g., without sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi at the end) (ex.: DN 32, under "Pañcataṃ"; and, MN 9, as part of 10 unskillful acts)
  • the 10 precepts (e.g., with a different third precept from the 5 precepts) are stated in Khp. 1.2 (e.g., Thanissaro, 1994)
  • I've seen a couple of allusions to panca-sila and panca-sikkhapada in the Canon (e.g. in the obscure SN 37.24 in Bodhi, 2000, p. 1289, referring to a woman's virtues; the Pali's here, para. 305).
  • the Abhidhamma Pitaka's Vibhanga has a chapter entitled, Sikkhāpada-vibhaṅgo (e.g., Vbh. 285), which enumerates the five training precepts but, again, absent the full language used here (i.e., no samādiyāmi).
  • a search with the La Trobe University search engine[1] appears to locate a match to this particular phraseology in the 12th c. AD (post-canonical, post-commentarial ;-) ) Upāsaka-janā-laṅkāra ("Ornament of Laypeople," abbrev. "Upas").

So, I've yet to come across these full blown statements (e.g., Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi) in the Canon; and, I wonder if the Upas ref is the earliest known context. Thanks for any help! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)