Question for Punnadhammo
Randy J
Thanks for your nice website, Arrow River Community Center,
Punnadhammo; just one question about your listing of the
precepts:
you say that the one about no intoxicants can't be compromised.
ie, no drinking, etc. at all. Well, isn't that for monks? Your response
to someone who said a little is ok, was that would we say that a
little killing is ok? There are sevral issues here. First, a little lying
would certainly be ok if the nazis were at your door asking if you
were hiding any Jews, right? Even for monks in this case.
Another issue is that the no drinking or intoxicants precept is
sometimes stated as, no intoxicants to the point of losing
mindfulness, which could be different points for different persons.
Also, if a deer runs past you in the woods, and a little later a
hunter comes up and says did you see which way he went,
wouldn't this be another occasion for a little lying?
So, don't the precepts have to be interpreted for the
specific situation, a sort of situational ethics,where
the least amount of suffering is the determining factor?
rj
Gavin Bennett
First I must apologise for jumping in to a thread directed at
Punnadhammo. However I would like to test my own understanding of the
precepts by exposing them on this ng.
Okay here we go:
Randy J wrote:
> you say that the one about no intoxicants can't be compromised.
> ie, no drinking, etc. at all. Well, isn't that for monks? Your
> response
> to someone who said a little is ok, was that would we say that a
> little killing is ok? There are sevral issues here. First, a little
> lying
> would certainly be ok if the nazis were at your door asking if you
> were hiding any Jews, right? Even for monks in this case.
>
The way I understand the 5th precept, (as well as the others), is that
it is as much a training method as a way of reducing suffering. A
little bit of alcohol won't intoxicate you (thus causing you to lose
your self-control) but abstaining completely can help develop an
understanding of attachment.
Also, how is killing justified in the case of Nazi Jewhunters at your
door?
> Another issue is that the no drinking or intoxicants precept is
> sometimes stated as, no intoxicants to the point of losing
> mindfulness, which could be different points for different persons.
I've never heard the 5th precept stated this way.
> Also, if a deer runs past you in the woods, and a little later a
> hunter comes up and says did you see which way he went,
> wouldn't this be another occasion for a little lying?
No. If you don't want to help the hunter, then you can remain silent.
Or you could explain to the hunter that you know where the deer is but
you don't feel comfortable telling him. Either way you keep your
precept, don't lose the trust of another human, and help protect the
deer.
> So, don't the precepts have to be interpreted for the
> specific situation, a sort of situational ethics,where
> the least amount of suffering is the determining factor?
Yes this is exactly right. However this must not be used as an excuse
for breaking the precepts. The precepts are very difficult to keep
(IMHO) but they serve a useful purpose. If we make excuses to break
them they become less useful.
Anyway, this has been brief but I hope not too foolish. I look forward
to seeing Punnadhammos's reply.
--
Gavin Bennett
as yet unenlightened
http://student.curtin.edu.au/~ebennettgd
Punnadhammo
In article <01bcf13d$76a5aec0$3edf...@randy.ufl.edu>, "Randy J"
<rje...@mail.uflib.ufl.edu> wrote:
> you say that the one about no intoxicants can't be compromised.
> ie, no drinking, etc. at all. Well, isn't that for monks?
The precept for lay people, as laid down by the Buddha, was against all
consumption of intoxicants. Total abstinence is the Buddhist ideal.
Your response
> to someone who said a little is ok, was that would we say that a
> little killing is ok? There are sevral issues here. First, a little lying
> would certainly be ok if the nazis were at your door asking if you
> were hiding any Jews, right? Even for monks in this case.
Admittedly, in such an extreme and unusual case as this, it may be
necessary to tell an untruth. However, I would still view this as a case
of mixed karma. That is, a little bit of bad karma for lying to the
Gestapo and a lot of good karma for preserving human life. In general
though, lying is not to be done. It creates delusion in another person's
mind which is about the worst thing you can do to them. I don't think
you can extend this Nazi example down to justify what society calls
'little white lies'
Alcohol creates delusion in one's own mind. A little bit creates a little
delusion and a lot creates a lot of delusion. From a Buddhist point of
view there is absolutely no justification for lowering one's level of
awareness deliberately. Nor can any likely case arise parallel to your
Nazi example, which is itself unlikely. I suppose if crazed terrorists
were holding a gun to a child's head and telling you to drink a beer or
they'll pull the trigger...Doesn't exactly happen every day.
>
> Another issue is that the no drinking or intoxicants precept is
> sometimes stated as, no intoxicants to the point of losing
> mindfulness, which could be different points for different persons.
It is only stated this way by those wishing to justify their indulgence.
There is no textual support at all for such an interpretation.
>
> Also, if a deer runs past you in the woods, and a little later a
> hunter comes up and says did you see which way he went,
> wouldn't this be another occasion for a little lying?
Another poster answered this one very well. Best to keep silence or to
explain to the hunter why you won't help him.
>
> So, don't the precepts have to be interpreted for the
> specific situation, a sort of situational ethics,where
> the least amount of suffering is the determining factor?
I am very wary of situational ethics. They presuppose one has enough
wisdom to decide the right thing. In reality they are often used as
justification for following desire. In the Theravada interpretation, at
any rate, there is little place for this kind of thing. The precepts are
seen as guidelines for skillful behaviour and if one keeps them, then one
can be sure of not doing wrong.
This all being said, it also important to remember that all the precepts
have relative levels. For instance, killing a mosquito is a breach of the
first precept but not nearly as serious as killing a human being.
Similarly for the fifth precept, taking one beer is an unskillful act but
is not anyway near as serious karmically as habitual drunkenness
>
>
>
--
Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
Arrow River Community Center
http://www.foxnet.net/~arcc/home.html