Environmental interpretation of 5 precepts of Buddhism

By: Sabreena Mushtaq

Buddhism was founded in the north-eastern part of India some 2,500 years ago by Siddhartha Gautama, who is also known as the ‘Lord Buddha’ or the ‘Enlightened One’. He is considered enlightened because he, according to the Buddhist belief, discovered what is called ‘the Four Noble Truths’ about life which are:

(1) Truth of Suffering (dukkha),

(2) Truth of the Origin of Suffering (samudaya);

(3) Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (nirodha), and

(4) Truth of the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering (Magga).

The last Truth is also known as “the Eightfold Path” which consists of

Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action,Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

According to Lord Buddha, this path will ultimately lead to true happiness and freedom from all suffering-an emancipation from the cycle of being born, getting old, being sick and dying. This life cycle is illustrative of a core Buddhist belief that everything is impermanent, changing, and interrelated. Another important belief is that we should cultivate four sublime attitudes, referred to as the Brahmaviharas, which include loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.

It is generally accepted that, through these teachings, Lord Buddha provides a system of analytical thinking, critical reflection, reasoned attentions, and thinking by way of causal relation or by way of problem solving, which helps guide people towards living a balanced and harmonious life with one another and with nature.

Five precepts of Buddhism

1. Abstinence from Taking Life

The first of the five precepts reads in Pali, Pānātipātāveramanīsikkhāpadamsamādiyāmi, in English, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.” Here the word pana, meaning that which breathes, denotes any living being that has breath and consciousness. It includes animals and insects as well as men, but does not include plants as they have only life but not breath or consciousness. The word “living being” is a conventional term, an expression of common usage, signifying in the strict philosophical sense the life faculty (jivitindriya). The word atipata means literally striking down, hence killing or destroying. Thus the precept enjoins abstinence (veramani) from the taking of life. Though the precept’s wording prohibits the killing of living beings, in terms of its underlying purpose it can also be understood to prohibit injuring, maiming, and torturing as well.

The Pali Buddhist commentaries formally define the act of taking life thus: “The taking of life is the volition of killing expressed through the doors of either body or speech, occasioning action which results in the cutting off of the life faculty in a living being, when there is a living being present and (the perpetrator of the act) perceives it as a living being.”

The first important point to note in this definition is that the act of taking life is defined as volition (cetand). Volition is the mental factor responsible for action (kamma), it has the function of arousing the entire mental apparatus for the purpose of accomplishing a particular aim, in this case, the cutting off of the life faculty of a living being. The identification of the transgression with volition implies that the ultimate responsibility for the act of killing lies with the mind, since the volition that brings about the act is a mental factor. The body and speech function merely as doors for that volition, ie, as channels through which the volition of taking life reaches expression. Killing is classified as a bodily deed since it generally occurs via the body, but what really performs the act of killing is the mind using the body as the instrument for actualizing its aim.

A second important point to note is that killing need not occur directly through the body. The volition to take life can also express itself through the door of speech. This means that the command to take life, given to others by way of words, writing, or gesture, is also considered a case of killing. One who issues such a command becomes responsible for the action as soon as it achieves its intention of depriving a being of life. A complete act of killing constituting a full violation of the precept involves five factors:

(1) a living being.

(2) the perception of the living being as such;

( 3) the thought or volition of killing:

(4) the appropriate effort; and

(5) the actual death of the being as a result of the action.

2 Abstinence from Taking What Is Not Given

The second precept Adinnädänäveramanisikkhāpadamsamādiyāmi, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.” The word adinna, meaning “what is not given,” signifies the belongings of another person over which one exercises ownership

The act of taking what is not given is formally defined thus: “Taking what is not given is the volition with thievish intent arousing the activity of appropriating an article belonging to another legally and blamelessly in one who perceives it as belonging to another.” As in the case of the first precept the transgression here consists ultimately in a volition. This volition can commit the act of theft by originating action through body or speech; thus a transgression is incurred either by taking something directly by oneself or else indirectly, by commanding someone else to appropriate the desired article. The fundamental purpose of the precept is to protect the property of individuals from unjustified confiscation by others. Its ethical effect is to encourage honesty and right livelihood. According to the commentaries, for a complete breach of the precept to be committed five factors must be present:

(1 ) an article belonging to another legally and blamelessly,

(2 ) the perception of it as belonging to another;

(3) the thought or intention of stealing:

(4) the activity of taking the article, and

(5) the actual appropriation of the article.

3 . Abstinence from Misconduct regarding Sense-pleasures

The third precept reads: Kümesumicchācārāveramanisikkhāpadamsamādiyāmi, “I under- take the training rule to abstain from misconduct in regard to sense pleasures.” The word käma has the general meaning of sense pleasure or sensual desire, but the commentaries explain it as sexual relations (methunasamācāra), an interpretation supported by the suttas. Micchācāra means wrong modes of conduct. Thus the precept enjoins abstinence from improper or illicit sexual relations.

Misconduct is regard to sense pleasures is formally defined as “the volition with sexual intent occurring through the bodily door, causing transgression with an illicit partner.” The primary question this definition elicits is: who is to qualify as an illicit partner? For men, the text lists twenty types of women who are illicit partners. These can be grouped into three categories:

(1) a woman who is under the protection of elders or other authorities charged with her care, eg, a girl being cared for by parents, by an older brother or sister, by other relatives, or by the family as a whole;

(2) a woman who is prohibited by convention, that is, close relatives forbidden under family tradition, nuns and other women vowed to observe celibacy as a spiritual discipline, and those forbidden as partners under the law of the land; and

(3) a woman who is married or engaged to another man, even one bound to another man only by a temporary agreement.

In the case of women, for those who are married any man other than a husband is an illicit partner. For all women a man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited as a partner. For both men and women any violent, forced, or coercive union, whether by physical compulsion or psychological pressure, can be regarded as a transgression of the precept even when the partner is not otherwise illicit. But a man or woman who is widowed or divorced can freely remarry according to choice. The texts mention four factors which must be present for a breach of the precept to be incurred

(1) an illicit partner, as defined above;

(2) the thought or volition of engaging in sexual union with that person;

(3) the act of engaging in union; and (4) the acceptance of the union.

4. Abstinence from False Speech

The fourth precept reads: Musăvădäveramanisikkhāpadamzamādiyāmi, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.” False speech is defined as “the wrong volition with intent to deceive, occurring through the door of either body or speech, arousing the bodily or verbal effort of deceiving another.” The transgression must be understood as intentional.The precept is not violated merely by speaking what is false, but by speaking what is false with the intention of representing that as true, thus it is equivalent to lying or deceptive speech. The volition is said to arouse bodily or verbal action. The use of speech to deceive is obvious, but the body too can be used as an instrument of communication-as in writing, hand signals, and gestures-and thus can be used to deceive others.

Four factors enter into the offense of false speech:

(1) an untrue state of affairs;

(2) the intention of deceiving another;

(3) the effort to express that, either verbally or bodily, and

(4) the conveying of a false impression to another.

5. Abstinence from Intoxicating Drinks and Drugs

The fifth precept reads: Sură, meraya, majjapamada-1,thānāveramanisikkhāpadamsamādi-yami, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.” The word meraya means fermented liquors, sura liquors which have been distilled to increase their strength and flavor. The world majja, meaning an intoxicant, can be related to the rest of the passage either as qualified by sura, meraya or as additional to them. In the former case the whole phrase means fermented and distilled liquors which are intoxicants, in the latter it means fermented and distilled liquors and other intoxicants. If this second reading is adopted the precept would explicitly include intoxicating drugs used non-medicinally, such as the opiates, hemp, and psychedelics. But even on the first reading the precept implicitly proscribes these drugs by way of its guiding purpose, which is to prevent heedlessness caused by the taking of intoxicating substances.

The taking of intoxicants is defined as the volition leading to the bodily act of ingesting distilled or fermented intoxicants. It can be committed only one’s own person (not by command to others) and only occurs through the bodily door. For the precept to be vio

factors are required: (1) the intoxicant, (2) the intention of taking it, (3) the activity of ingesting it, and (4) the actual ingestion of the intoxicant.

Environmental interpretation of Five precepts of Buddhism.

Ist precept: Avoid killing

Environmental interpretation:

The first precept of Buddhism is to refrain from taking life, which is often interpreted in an environmental context as advocating for non-violence and compassion towards all living beings. This precept encourages followers to consider the interconnectedness of all life and to avoid causing harm to any sentient beings.In an environmental interpretation, practitioners are urged to extend their compassion beyond human beings to include animals, plants, and the entire ecosystem. This perspective aligns with the ecological interconnectedness and emphasizes the importance of coexisting harmoniously with nature.

The concept of non-harm in Buddhism extends not only to intentional killing but also to indirect harm caused by human activities such as deforestation, pollution, and overconsumption. Practicing the first precept in an environmental sense involves mindfulness and responsible stewardship of the Earth, recognizing that actions affecting the environment ultimately impact all living beings.

In essence, the environmental interpretation of the first precept encourages Buddhists to live in harmony with nature, recognizing the intrinsic value of all life and striving to minimize the ecological footprint in order to contribute to the well-being of the entire planet.

2nd precept: Avoid stealing

Environmental interpretation:

The second precept in Buddhism is typically stated as refraining from taking what is not given, or more broadly, practicing honesty and integrity. In an environmental context, this precept can be interpreted as an injunction against exploiting natural resources without proper consideration and care.Environmental interpretation of the second precept encourages Buddhists to reflect on their consumption patterns and the impact of their choices on the environment.

This involves respecting the idea of shared resources and understanding that the Earth’s resources are not limitless. Practitioners are urged to be mindful of the ecological consequences of overconsumption, habitat destruction, and the depletion of natural resources.The concept of not taking what is not given extends beyond tangible possessions to include the intangible resources of the Earth, such as clean air, water, and a balanced ecosystem. Buddhists practicing this precept in an environmental sense strive to lead sustainable lifestyles, making choices that contribute to the well-being of the planet rather than exploiting it for personal gain.

Moreover, this interpretation emphasizes the importance of ethical considerations in environmental stewardship. It encourages responsible and sustainable practices in agriculture, industry, and daily living. By embracing this interpretation, individuals seek to minimize their ecological footprint, promote environmental justice, and foster a more equitable and sustainable relationship with the Earth.

3rd precept: Avoid sexual misconduct

Environmental interpretation:

The third precept in Buddhism pertains to refraining from engaging in sexual misconduct. In an environmental context, this precept can be interpreted as encouraging a responsible and mindful approach to the way humans interact with and impact the natural world.

The environmental interpretation of the third precept encourages practitioners to reflect on the consequences of their actions on the environment, particularly regarding issues related to population growth, resource consumption, and the overall ecological balance. It suggests that a mindful and restrained approach to reproduction and family planning is essential to avoid overpopulation and the resulting strain on the Earth’s resources.This interpretation also emphasizes the importance of cultivating a sense of responsibility in one’s relationship with the environment. Practitioners are encouraged to consider how their lifestyle choices, including those related to family planning, may affect the broader ecological system. This involves recognizing the interconnectedness between human activities and environmental well-being.

Furthermore, the environmental interpretation of the third precept encourages an awareness of the impact of human activities on biodiversity and the delicate balance of ecosystems. It underscores the need for ethical considerations in land use, agriculture, and urban planning to avoid environmental degradation.In summary, the environmental interpretation of the third precept in Buddhism promotes a conscientious and responsible approach to human interactions with the environment, advocating for mindful choices that contribute to ecological sustainability and balance.

4th precept:Avoid false speech

Environmental interpretation:

The fourth precept in Buddhism relates to truthful communication and refraining from false speech. In an environmental interpretation, this precept encourages practitioners to cultivate awareness and honesty in their communication about environmental issues, as well as fostering a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between language and ecological well-being.

In the context of environmental stewardship, truthful communication involves being honest about the state of the environment, acknowledging environmental challenges, and advocating for sustainable solutions. This precept emphasizes the importance of spreading accurate information about environmental issues, encouraging awareness, and dispelling misinformation that might hinder responsible environmental practices.

Additionally, the environmental interpretation of the fourth precept underscores the significance of mindful language in fostering a positive and constructive dialogue about sustainability. Practitioners are encouraged to communicate with compassion and empathy, understanding that environmental issues often involve complex and nuanced challenges that require collaborative solutions.This interpretation also highlights the need for transparency in environmental decision-making processes. Governments, corporations, and individuals are encouraged to be truthful about their environmental impact, practices, and initiatives. This honesty fosters accountability and promotes a culture of responsibility towards the Earth.

Furthermore, the fourth precept in an environmental context encourages practitioners to be aware of the power of language in shaping perceptions and attitudes toward the environment. By using truthful and mindful communication, individuals can inspire positive change and contribute to a collective effort to address environmental challenges.In summary, the environmental interpretation of the fourth precept in Buddhism emphasises truthful and mindful communication, promoting awareness, transparency, and responsible language use to foster a deeper understanding of and commitment to environmental sustainability.

5th precept ‘Avoid intoxicants

Environmental interpretation:

The fifth precept in Buddhism is commonly stated as refraining from the consumption of intoxicants. In an environmental interpretation, this precept can be understood as promoting a lifestyle that minimizes harm to the environment by avoiding activities that contribute to pollution, resource depletion, and ecological degradation associated with the production and consumption of intoxicating substances.

From an environmental perspective, the fifth precept encourages practitioners to consider the broader impacts of their choices on the planet. The production and distribution of intoxicants, such as alcohol and certain drugs, often involve resource-intensive processes, agricultural practices, and transportation, contributing to carbon emissions and environmental degradation.Moreover, the environmental interpretation of the fifth precept highlights the potential for substance abuse to impair one’s judgement and decision-making, leading to behaviours that harm the environment. Responsible and mindful living, in this context, involves avoiding substances that may compromise one’s ability to make environmentally conscious choices and contribute positively to the well-being of the Earth.

Additionally, this interpretation aligns with the principle of mindful consumption, promoting awareness of the ecological footprint associated with the production and disposal of intoxicants. It encourages a lifestyle that minimises waste and pollution, recognizing the interconnectedness between personal choices and the health of the environment.Practitioners embracing the environmental interpretation of the fifth precept may also extend their mindfulness to the impact of substance abuse on social and ecological systems, recognizing the potential for environmental harm stemming from activities related to the production and distribution of intoxicants.

In summary, the environmental interpretation of the fifth precept in Buddhism advocates for a lifestyle that minimises harm to the environment by refraining from the consumption of intoxicants. It encourages mindfulness about the ecological consequences of personal choices and emphasizes the interconnectedness between individual actions and the well-being of the Earth.

References

1.Buddhism and ecology by Martine Batchelor.

2.Responsibilities within Buddhism by SantoshKhadka.

3.A spiritual dimension and environmental education: Buddhism and environmental crisis.

4.Bhikkhubodhi, “Going for refuge; Taking the precepts”

The writer is pursuing masters in Islamic studies at Central University of Kashmir Ganderbal.