The First Precept: Definition and Intention

I think that’s pretty clear. Do you think the first precept is exclusively to not kill or does it ever specifically say harm? I suppose “harm” covers a lot more degrees of severity but killing is once and for all.

I think you could argue that all the precepts are intended to prevent harm, both to oneself and to others.
Killing is the worst kind of harm one can do.

1 Like

I would also refer you to this passage from DN1:

When an ordinary person speaks praise of the Realized One, they speak only of trivial, insignificant details of mere ethics.
Appamattakaṁ kho panetaṁ, bhikkhave, oramattakaṁ sīlamattakaṁ, yena puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya.

And what are the trivial, insignificant details of mere ethics that an ordinary person speaks of?
Katamañca taṁ, bhikkhave, appamattakaṁ oramattakaṁ sīlamattakaṁ, yena puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya?

‘The ascetic Gotama has given up killing living creatures. He has renounced the rod and the sword. He’s scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings.’
‘Pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo nihitadaṇḍo, nihitasattho, lajjī, dayāpanno, sabba­pāṇabhūta­hitā­nu­ka­mpī viharatī’ti—

Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya.

I have always found the translation of sila as ethics as sort of confusing, in English “ethics” tends to mean a theoretical system that explains why a thing is right or wrong, the lists given in the early material are almost entirely behaviors, without a theory, so I think a more useful translation would be “conduct”.

Also, as one sees above, the Buddha says that these matters of conduct are “trivial” things, more or less conventional, meant to allow practitioners to get to a state of mind where they are not assailed by feelings of guilt which is an obstacle to practice.

This is not to say that murder and harm are not “bad karma” but rather to say that the buddhas actual system of ethics has much more to do with purifying the mind from craving and attachment and therefore making people into the types of people for whom the idea of murdering or harming never comes up, conduct, wakefulness, eating little, restraining the senses are all preparatory steps to the “real deal” of sitting under a tree and freeing the mind.

So to summarize I think that our contemporary ways of thinking make us look for an “ethics” in the sila lists and vinaya and so on when it was probably just as important in those lists to follow conventions and create an “atmosphere” that inspired confidence in the order. The real ethics in the system is in the development of wisdom.

1 Like

(I’m open to correction. Please don’t hesitate to advise me for my betterment.)

I think the first precept is exclusively to not kill.

I’m reminded of the simile of gold purification, whereby the bigger impurities are removed first and then the smaller ones. The bigger ones seem to be covered by the 5 precepts, including killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying. The medium ones seem to be the three samma vaca other than lying (musavada). The more refined ones seem to be referring to harmful mental actions which are covetousness, ill will, and wrong view. Please see 10 akusala kamma.

Edit add-on: Killing is just one type of harming. The remaining 9 akusala kamma are also harmful acts

3 Likes

Yes, killing is the worst kind of harm one can do.

One more thing @Adutiya at least in the Vinaya there is a world of difference between killing a human being and killing an animal, even advocating for a human being to take their own life warrants expulsion from the order, however; Vbh 61 gives;

At one time the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Monastery. At that time Venerable Udāyī was skilled in archery. And because he disliked crows, he shot them. He cut off their heads and then set them out in a row impaled on stakes. The monks asked him, “Who killed these crows?”

“I did. I don’t like crows.”

The monks of few desires complained and criticized him, “How can Venerable Udāyī intentionally kill living beings?” … “Is it true, Udāyī, that you do this?”

“It’s true, Sir.”

The Buddha rebuked him … “Foolish man, how can you do this? This will affect people’s confidence …” … “And, monks, this training rule should be recited like this:

Final ruling

‘If a monk intentionally kills a living being, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”

So if the penalty is anything to go by it is worse to kill a human than to behead a bunch of crows and stick their severed heads on stakes! (By the way I HIGHLY recommend reading the Vinaya for this and many many other WILD stories that do not make it into the very serious Suttas)

3 Likes

Thank you very much for this reference. In the Definitions section, it directly addresses some of my questions. :grinning:

1 Like