Somdet Phra Yannasangwon, the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, Sakol Maha Sanghaparinayok
Precepts are moral guidelines that govern human behavior, ensuring harmonious coexistence and societal order. They also serve specific spiritual purposes depending on the teachings of a particular religion. Most religions prescribe rules regarding conduct, some of which overlap, while others differ, as determined by their founders or religious organizations. These rules are often laid out as prohibitions, meaning that apart from what is explicitly forbidden, other actions are permissible. For instance, in Buddhism, the Five Precepts are: refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from sexual misconduct, refraining from false speech, and refraining from consuming intoxicating substances that cause heedlessness.
These Five Precepts are foundational principles in Buddhism, widely recognized as they are routinely recited during religious ceremonies. Most Thais are familiar with them from a young age, often hearing monks administer the precepts before they even understand their significance. However, it is worth contemplating how much importance people truly place on the precepts and how they view them, given the considerable gap between the prescribed precepts and common human behaviors. Examples of such contradictions are as follows:
The First Precept prohibits taking the life of any living being, including humans, animals, and even tiny creatures like mosquitoes, ants, and flies. Yet, on a daily basis, countless lives are taken to provide food for human consumption. While some people practice vegetarianism, they are a minority. Scientific research frequently involves the use of animals for experimentation. In law enforcement and governance, weapons are used for control, and punishment is meted out to lawbreakers. In warfare, lives are taken using weapons. These actions are not considered illegal or morally wrong in worldly terms and are sometimes deemed necessary. For example, police and soldiers are obligated to fulfill their duties; abandoning them could be deemed a violation.
Moreover, in modern times, many animals are recognized as carriers of diseases, and even microscopic pathogens are identified through advanced technology like microscopes. Microorganisms, which are present in virtually everything—including drinking water—cannot be entirely eliminated even with filtration. Consuming water inherently involves destroying microscopic life. Should these microorganisms be regarded as "living beings" under the First Precept? If so, it would be impossible to uphold this precept fully. Additionally, some argue that abstaining from killing animals should extend to avoiding meat consumption, as eating meat indirectly supports killing, making it equally sinful.
The Second Precept prohibits taking what is not given, which aligns with laws against theft. However, exceptions are made, such as the seizure of enemy property during warfare.
The Third Precept condemns sexual misconduct, particularly adultery. Such behavior is generally viewed as morally wrong and undermines trust. Engaging in inappropriate relationships, whether by tradition or legal standards, is considered a violation. This includes acts of coercion, whether physical or financial, even with those who are unmarried. This precept promotes respect for familial and societal boundaries, extending to broader ethical behavior. For instance, in the book "The Virtues of a Gentleman", guidelines include not intruding into guests’ rooms without invitation, avoiding peering into private spaces, and refraining from inspecting others’ personal belongings without permission. These behaviors reflect good manners rooted in the essence of the precepts, which aim to foster respect and avoid overstepping boundaries.
The Fourth Precept prohibits false speech, a principle broadly recognized as ethical. However, truthfulness is rarely absolute in daily interactions, leading to distrust. In some situations, falsehoods might seem justified—for instance, when someone lies to protect themselves from harm or when doctors conceal the severity of a patient’s illness to maintain their morale. Such instances, while technically violating the precept, do not contradict its core purpose, which is to prevent harm through speech. Conversely, even truthful statements made with malicious intent, such as slander or criticism meant to demean others, violate the spirit of the precept. The Buddha himself emphasized not only the avoidance of falsehood but also refraining from divisive speech, harsh words, and idle chatter, as these too can harm others.
The Fifth Precept advises abstinence from intoxicants, yet alcohol consumption remains widespread. Breweries operate continuously under legal approval, and bars are frequented day and night. Alcohol is often integral to social events, with its absence perceived as diminishing the occasion's appeal. This widespread consumption, even though it contradicts the precept, generates significant economic revenue.
The inconsistencies between the precepts and actual practices, whether considered acceptable or unacceptable by society, reveal a general lack of understanding and appreciation for the precepts’ importance. People often fail to see the relevance of these ethical guidelines to their lives. Given this reality, it raises questions about how to approach the precepts effectively and whether there are ways to encourage adherence in meaningful ways.
Amending the Principles of Precepts to Match Practical Circumstances: For example, the first precept can be adjusted to align with legal standards, such that acts not considered illegal by the law may be permissible. However, if the act is against the law or involves cruelty to animals, it should still be avoided. The fourth precept could be allowed in certain circumstances to protect oneself or others. The fifth precept may permit occasional consumption within limits.
Not Amending the Principles of Precepts but Ignoring Them: Those who do not pay attention to the precepts may still be acceptable if they adhere to the laws of the land, as these laws serve as a form of precept designed to ensure social harmony. However, such individuals lack the inner moral foundation of the precepts, which will be elaborated upon later.
Not Amending the Principles but Practicing Selectively: Most Buddhists fall into this category. They do not alter the fundamental principles of the precepts but selectively adhere to certain precepts on specific occasions or conditions. For instance, some may abstain from alcohol throughout the three-month Buddhist Lent but resume drinking afterward. Fishermen may disregard the first precept concerning animals related to their profession but may refrain from harming other species. Medical students may disregard the precept concerning experiments on animals. This selective adherence depends on one’s faith and compatibility with their profession or responsibilities.
Strict Adherence Without Amendments: This group is rare and may encounter doubts regarding microorganisms. For example, some might question whether microorganisms qualify as living beings that should not be harmed. According to Buddhist history, the Buddha permitted medical treatments, including medicines and remedies provided by Jīvaka Komārabhacca, indicating that such precepts do not extend to microorganisms. Without such flexibility, one might not be able to eat, drink, or even breathe, rendering the precepts impractical. The precepts are meant for ordinary people to follow naturally and practically, without requiring microscopic scrutiny, which is relevant mainly to medical fields.
Regarding meat consumption, there are two schools of thought within Buddhism. One believes that eating meat indirectly causes killing, making it sinful. The Mahayana tradition advocates vegetarianism, considering meat consumption a sin. The Theravada tradition, however, permits consuming "pure" meat if the consumer did not see, hear, or suspect that the animal was specifically killed for them. Theravada monks are encouraged to be easy to support, accepting what is offered without preference for vegetarian or non-vegetarian food, provided it meets the purity criteria and does not include prohibited meats like tiger or elephant meat.
Rationale Behind the Buddha's Comprehensive Precepts: Some may wonder why the Buddha imposed precepts without exceptions, making them difficult for most to observe fully. While no one can fully understand the Buddha’s omniscient mind, the reasons can be deduced from his teachings. He emphasized fairness and compassion: all beings cherish life and fear death. The precepts aim to uphold justice and mutual respect for life, property, family, truth, and mindfulness. The strictness reflects the Buddha's impartial compassion for all beings and serves as the foundation for spiritual purity, leading to higher goals.
Addressing Practical Challenges and Interpretations:
Are Precepts Too Strict? Even if precepts are relaxed, people often violate them regardless of strictness due to personal tendencies toward convenience and self-interest. Thus, the problem lies with the individual rather than the rules.
Why Do People Violate Precepts? Violations stem from greed, anger, and delusion, which suppress shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa). Addressing these mental defilements through self-discipline and moral training is essential.
Precepts and Necessity: Violations may occur due to necessity, such as killing in self-defense or to protect the nation, stealing to survive, or consuming alcohol as medication. While these acts may be justified in certain circumstances, maintaining an intent to avoid unnecessary harm can significantly uphold the precepts.
Precepts Paired with Complementary Virtues: Each precept is supported by a corresponding virtue:
First Precept: Compassion (metta) to prevent harm.
Second Precept: Right Livelihood (samma-ajiva) for honest work.
Third Precept: Contentment in relationships (santutthi).
Fourth Precept: Truthfulness.
Fifth Precept: Mindfulness (sati) and vigilance.
Role of Leadership in Upholding Precepts: Leaders significantly influence collective morality. A virtuous leader inspires societal adherence to ethical conduct, while a corrupt leader fosters widespread misconduct.
In summary, the precepts are universally applicable moral guidelines aiming for justice and spiritual advancement. Their observance depends on individual and societal attitudes, leadership, and efforts to align personal practices with the precepts’ objectives.
Comments