The world today is in state of moral decline, the indication of which can be perceived in the ever-increasing rates of social problems, crime, violence and so forth. Undoubtedly, today, we expert more comfortable homes, more labor-saving, appliances, faster transportation, and more automation in factories. Our scientific, technological and social progress has resulted in enormous material progress. But humanity continues to live in fear, unrest and suffering. It cannot, however, be claimed that human beings in the modern world live more contented lives, feeling safe and secure, and that their interests will not be unjustly harmed by fellow human beings. Recently, we can see examples in the developed countries. Nowadays, there are millions of hungry people in underdeveloped countries who are fighting for a decent living and a square meal. Without economic growth, there can be no progress for them. The situation is equally problematic in some of the developed countries, where dreams of progress are combined with destruction, huge economic inequalities, a drive for industrialization, crime and unrest, suicide and mental illness.
Our world today is faced with multiple problems that threaten our individual lives as well as the entire world. Crises including war and aggression, widespread poverty and injustice, environmental degradation and globe warming, have reached alarming proportions. The analysis and solutions offered by conventional (policies or politics) (often based on greed, hatred and delusion) seem to be increasing the problems, rather than helping. Today we have to pay more attention so the gaps can be closed eventually. What was the significance of the Buddha’s teaching? The fundamental Buddhism stated by Buddha in the Dhammapada said: Not to do any evil, to cultivate good, to purify one's mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.[1]
Someone may raise the question as to how we can stop doing what is called 'evil' and cultivate what is called 'good'. Human beings have the freedom to do so, but how is it possible for us to refrain from evil or do well?
Buddhist teaching and contemplative practices, whose roots stretch back more than 2,500 years, offer us different, more effective ways of engaging with the world and with all its contemporary social issues. Renewed interest in applying this spiritual practice to social problems has produced a movement often referred to as socially engaged Buddhism, which offers both a theoretical framework for understanding the root causes of conflict and violence against other sentient beings and environment, as well as practices and approaches we can use in our own lives to help others and to create more just and peaceful societies. In the light of its current importance, there's a need to develop the environmental values implicit in the doctrine of the Buddha and attain global acceptance. Therefore, in this topic I will attempt to present an important point; the significance of the Five Precepts in modern society, and what is needed is a total development in the Buddhist point of view.
The word pancasila is commonly translated as the Five Precepts, or five branches of moral practice[2]. However, Stewart McFarlane suggests, maybe a better translation is "training rule".[3] According to Buddhism, the Sila or precept has various grades, and it has two main divisions; Gahattha-Sila which is meant for laymen and Bhikkhu-Sila is for monks. The fundamental grades are to be observed by laymen and the higher grades by monks. The Panca-Sila is the first step to the Buddhist training. Uposatha-Sila, which is also meant for laymen, also has several grades: Five Precepts, Eight Precepts, Ten precepts, etc. Panca-Sila is to be observed by laymen in every day life, Uposatha-Sila on Uposatha days, i.e. Full moon, New moon and the eight days of the waxing and waning moon. The Bhikkhu-Sila which is to be practised by monks also has two grades, i.e., Samanera-Sila and Upasampada-Sila. The first one is meant for novice monks and the second for those who have received higher ordination as Bhikkhus (monks). However, W. Pachow has put forward the suggestion that the rules of the Patimokkha (the rules of the monks) are a direct out growth of the Five Percepts. He said: It would not be unreasonable to say that the code of discipline of the Sangha is but an enlarged edition of the pancasila which have been adopted by the Buddhists and the Jains from the Brahmanical ascetics. And under various circumstances, they have developed subsidiary rules in order to meet various requirements on various occasions. This appears to us to be the line of development through which the growth of these rules could be explained.[4]
It is clear that the first Five Precepts are binding on all Buddhists, as they briefly sum up the primary duties of man. A layman may acquire merit by observing the five, eight, even the ten precepts, either for a limited period or till death. The simplest of the Buddhist morality are the Five Precepts as follows:
1. I undertake the precept to abstain from the taking of life.
2. I undertake the precept not to take that which is not given.
3. I undertake the precept to abstain from misconduct in sensual actions.
4. I undertake the precept to abstain from false speech.
5. I undertake the precept to abstain from liquor that causes intoxication and indolence.
I. Taking life:
The first precept is to refrain from killing living beings. No one has the right to take the life of a living being; nor his own life. Whether the life is that of another being or one's own, it makes no difference. What is important is that it is a life! To take any life is wrong and sinful. In recent years many scientist and some religionists have used the expressions "humane killing", "mercy killing", "gentle killing", and "painless killing" to justify the ending of a life. Buddhism can never accept this argument because it is not how the killing occurs, but the fact that the life of one being is put to an end by another. No one has any right to do that for whatever reason, and we have to understand mercy and killing can never go together. For example, some people kill their pets because they don’t like to see the pet suffer. However, if mercy killing is to be practiced on pets or other animals, then why are people so reluctant to do the same to their beloved ones? According to Buddhism death is not mentioned as an end of suffering, 'suicide' as a reaction to suffering.[5] A person who prefers death and believes that to be a solution to suffering has totally misunderstood, and it is a false escape route according to the Buddhist point of view. The following is found in one of the Buddhist texts: A monk who preaches suicide, who tells man: "Do away with this wretched life, full of suffering and sin; death is better," in fact preaches murder, is a murderer, is no longer a monk.[6]
Nevertheless, Martin G. Wiltshire identified in the title of his paper that suicide seems to be regarded with ambivalence in the Pali canon. Wiltshire wrote in his opening paragraph: "We should, perhaps, point out that suicide first presented itself to us as an intriguing subject of enquiry when we discovered that it appeared to be regarded ambiguously within the Canon, that it was both censored and condoned."[7]
The view that suicide is regarded in the canon let's we turn back over to the 1922, L. de la Vallee Poussin states:
We have therefore good reason to believe (1) that suicide is not an ascetic act leading to spiritual progress and to nirvana, and (2) that no saint or Arahat - a spiritually perfect being - will kill himself. But we are confronted with a number of stories which prove beyond dispute that we are mistaken in these two important conclusions.[8]
In recent times Carl B. Becker, commenting upon the suicide of the monks Channa and Vakkali, refers to the, "Buddha's praise of the suicides," and claims that this praise is based upon the fact that . . . "their minds were selfless, desireless and enlightened at the moment of their passing."[9] I disagree with Becker regarding the Buddha's praising of these suicides, and will show why this does give an insight into the reasons why there is a division in morality between the suicidal act of an Arahat and a non-Arahat. Etienne Lamotte wrote: The desperate person who takes his own life obviously aspires to annihilation: his suicide, instigated by desire, will not omit him from fruition, and he will have to partake of the fruit of his action. In the case of the ordinary man, suicide is a folly and does not achieve the intended aim.[10]
This situation is compared with the suicide of an enlightened person, he further mentions: In contrast, suicide is justified in the persons of the Noble Ones who have already cut off desire and by so doing neutralized their actions by making them incapable of producing further fruit of fruition. From the point of view of early Buddhism, suicides is a normal matter in the case of the Noble Ones who, having completed their work, sever their last link with the world and voluntarily pass into Nirvana, thus definitively escaping from the world of rebirths.[11]
According to the above mentioned the suggestion that suicide is right for Arahats but wrong for non-Arahats also seems strange in another respect. Arahats and Buddha's are held up by the tradition as moral paradigms, in all circumstances to emulate a Buddha or an Arahat is to do right. Suicide, however, according to the views of Lamotte and others, is an exception to this rule. In this one respect the unenlightened should not simulate the enlightened.
The first precept, regarded as the most important, is the resolution to not kill or injure any human, animal, bird, fish or even a tiny insect. The Dhammapada explains that everyone fears punishment and death.[12] Whereas, the first precept does not mention that most Buddhists are vegetarian, and the Buddha himself seems to have accepted meat in his alms bowl. His emphasis was on avoiding intentional killing, so that it was worse to swat a fly than to eat a dead carcass. He allowed a monk to eat flesh if he had not seen, heard or suspected that the creature had been killed specifically for him, such a diet then being 'blameless'.[13] In the Majjihima Nikaya, Buddha further suggests, as regards to lay devotee, even killing so as to give meat as alms generates 'demerit', due to the distress felt by the animals while being brought to slaughter and the pain when killed.[14]
However, in Mahayana Buddhism, the Lankavatara Sutra[15] denies that the Buddha allowed 'blameless' meat for monks, and argues against meat-eating: all beings have been relatives in a past life; eating meat hinders meditation and leads to bad health, arrogance and rebirth as a carnivorous animal or low-class human; if no meat is eaten, killing for consumption will cease. In China, the first precept has been seen as requiring vegetarianism, and so monks, nuns and devout lay disciples have avoided meat, and vegetarian feasts have been common at Buddhist celebrations and at every full moon and new moon.[16]
There is a difference between the schools; the reason is that Theravada Buddhist monks live on alms, they should not pick and choose what food is acceptable, or deprive a donor of the opportunity of making 'merit' by refusing 'blameless' food. As regards to the Mahayana Buddhist monks, they are allowed to cook in the temple, and undoubtedly they can manage pure vegetarian food. Whereas, in my opinion the reason between eating meat and being a vegetarian, depends on different cultures, propagating in different counties and so forth. Undoubtedly, respect for life is the general knowledge of the first precept, and no society or person would resist to saintly or (sainted) of human life. Therefore, the precept against killing can be accepted all over the world as valid. Everyone has an equal right to pursue one's own happiness, and they should not endanger the happiness of another. To pursue one’s own happiness at the expense of another is an immoral and unethical act.
II. Taking what has not been given:
The second precept is to refrain from possessing anything except that which is one's own and that which is willingly given by another. This means one should not take possession of any property belonging to another person by way of stealing, seizing, looting, robbing, plundering, cheating, black-mailing, bribery, hijacking, smuggling and so forth.
Lily de Silva has mentioned[17] the inordinate acquisitive greed of man is the root cause of much misery today. For example, the wanton felling of trees has resulted in severe soil erosion in mountainous regions. Time and again the consequence has been massive mudslides resulting in the destruction of whole villages and the loss of hundreds of lives. The destruction of tropical rain forests all over the world has also altered the climatic conditions of the whole planet. Scientists are now warning of the danger of a global temperature rise and the consequent melting of icecaps in the Polar Regions. In such an event, within the course of the next century, the sea will engulf vast inhabited coastal regions all over the world. All of these and many more tragedies are the direct effects of modern man's greed, which has assumed insufferable proportions. The first step to restrain greed is the observance of the second precept, the positive aspect of which is non-ostentatiousness and the ability to be contented with a simple life where needs is satisfied rather than greed.
Buddhism is very close to nature. Monks are forbidden to chop down trees and meditators are encouraged to meditate in the forest. Also as Buddhists, by reducing the amount of things we consume we would be reducing pollution. The role that Buddhists have is in countering global warming. Because of the human heavy affliction of greed, anger and delusion, the environment is now relatively suffering too. The minds of human beings are very powerful, they intend, they act and they speak to influence others to think, act and speak likewise, for good or for evil. So back to the basics, if we wish the world to recover, we need to aim at people’s hearts and minds so that they are afflicted with less and less greed, anger and delusion.
III. Sexual misconduct:
The third precept is to refrain from the wrong way of enjoying sensual pleasures. A layman is not totally prohibited from appeasing his senses; nevertheless, he must be moderate and must not exceed the limit. The senses are five in number: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Their respective objects are material forms, sound, smell, taste and touch. They are admitted through the doors of the eye, ear, nose, tongue and outer covering of the body respectively. One should know where to draw the line in enjoying sense objects. Excessive enjoying causes harm to one as well as to others. It could bring about damaging results not only in this world but also in the world beyond. This precept enjoins the laymen to guard against craving for excessive enjoyment of sensual pleasure.
Sexually transmitted diseases have increased rapidly, to assume almost epidemic proportions. The whole world was shaken with a rude shock by the advent of the dreaded disease AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, for which medical scientists all over the globe are struggling, without success so far, to find an effective cure. It is also a well-known secret that one of the causes for cancer of the cervix in women is exposure to several sexual partners. The discovery of contraception relieved man of the responsibilities that come in the wake of sex and sensuality has become an accepted social trend. All manners of sexual behavior are practiced without restraint. Homosexuality, lesbianism, premarital, sadism, masochism, Pedophilia, Pederasty, and extramarital sex have become widespread phenomena and accepted as routine. Incest and rape, too, raise their ugly heads with unprecedented frequency. Sexual abuse of children within the family circle is so common that in Britain a telephone service called Child-line has been set up which specializes in counseling abused children. It is reported that this voluntary organization receives over 1000 calls a day.[18] Sadomasochism has also become a popular theme for advertisers who seek to appear 'edgy' or unconventional.
The Buddha teaches to avoid sexual misconduct. That means that if one wants to experience sex, he must do so without creating any violence or without using any kind of force, threat or causing fear. A decent sex life, which respects the other partner, is not against this religion; it accepts the fact that it is a necessity for those who are not yet ready to renounce the worldly life. According to Buddhism, those who are involved in extra-marital sex with someone who is already married, who has been betrothed to someone else, and also with those who are under the protection of their parents or guardians are said to be guilty of sexual misconduct, because there is a rupture of social norms, where a third party is being made to suffer as a result of the selfishness of one or the other partner.
In view of what has been said about "Birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering," some people have criticized Buddhism saying that it is against married life. They are wrong. The Buddha never spoke against married life. However, he pointed out all the problems, difficulties and worries that people would have to face when they take on the responsibility of marriage. Just because he warned one against problems in marriage does not mean that the Buddha condemned marriage. The act of marriage itself implies that a person is still more attached to the physical world and since craving influences our mental faculties, attachment and human emotions, it is but natural that problems would arise. This happens when we have to consider the need of others and to give in to those needs.
One important aspect of Buddhism is that the Buddha did not impose any religious laws or commandments. The Buddha was a unique teacher who set out a number of disciplinary codes for us to uphold according to our way of life. Those who follow the precepts observe them voluntarily but not as obligatory religious laws. It is up to us to follow the advice through our own understanding and experience of what is good for us and for others. Through trial and error, we will learn to follow the advice, which will give us just peace and happiness.
In Majjihima Nikaya, the Buddha said: Not only others', teachings, but the Buddha said, his own teaching themselves should be subjected to careful scrutable before acceptance. He went as far as that an inquiring monk should first examine the Buddha himself so as to verify whether his teaching is really enlightened before accepting him as the Buddha.[19] And he did not claim any authority on the basis of omniscience, which he expressly rejected when others attributed it to him.[20]
One should try to understand the nature of the worldly life. By knowing that you have to face problems, you will be able to strengthen your mind and be more prepared to face the problems that could arise if you get married. Religion is important to help you overcome your problems. Whatever you learned about religious principle when you were young can be adopted to avoid misunderstanding, disappointment and frustration. At the same time, certain good qualities such as patience and understanding, which we learned through religion, are important assets to help us to lead a peaceful married life. Normally, it is due to a lack of mutual understanding that many married couples lead miserable lives. The result of this is that their innocent children also suffer. It is better to know how to handle your problems in order to lead a happy married life. Religion can help you to do this. The Buddha has said, "If a man can find a suitable and understanding wife and a woman can find a suitable and understanding husband, both are fortunate indeed."
IV. Telling lies:
The fourth precept is to refrain from uttering lies. It is sinful to utter a falsehood even as a joke. Much graver are the lies uttered in other respects such as perjury. One must not utter a lie even for the sake of one's life. Uttering lies through ill will, hatred, jealousy, lust, fear or prejudice will bring about harmful results not only in the present life but also in future lives. According to Buddhism, rulers must set a good example for their subjects by maintaining a high standard of morality in their public and private lives. Only the individuals' high integrity and moral stature can command the respect and loyalty of the people. When rulers are unrighteous and morally depraved, social values deteriorate and society gradually sinks into anarchy and chaos.[21] As man is a social animal, mutual dependability is a survival strategy. Dishonesty weakens the very basis of society and the whole social structure breaks down with mutual distrust. Military strength cannot bring unity and harmony in society; it is moral power, which infuses resilience and strength to social life.
V. Taking intoxicants:
The fifth and last of the Five Precepts is to refrain from using intoxicating drinks and narcotic drugs. Alcoholism and drug abuse are burning social problems of modern society. They ruin the physical and mental health of the addicts. One does not have to be a habitual drunkard to fall prey to the disease. According to a British medical journal, daily beer drinkers are twelve times more at risk of developing colon cancer than non-drinkers. It is also reported that even relatively modest social drinking by pregnant women can harm the fetus. Alcohol and drugs are at the root of many crimes in modern society and the cause of many serious traffic accidents. This brings about harmful effects physically as well as mentally. Once a person uses any of them, there is a tendency to become addicted to it. Hardly any hope is left for one to recover when one becomes an addict. Gradually, he becomes a miserable person and finally a total wreck. The suttas report that bad health and a bad reputation also are caused by the habit of taking intoxicants, for it removes inhibitions and weakens wisdom.[22] Moreover, once a person is so intoxicated, he loses his normal self. He forgets himself. He is unable to control his temptations and thus is apt to commit offences. Hence, the fifth precept totally prohibits the use of them except for medicinal purposes.
According to Buddhism each man in society is expected to voluntarily take upon himself/herself the vow not to destroy life. Life is sacred and each human being is expected to respect life as inviolable. When this non-violent attitude is widespread, the right to life of each individual gets automatically fulfilled. Additionally, this non-violent attitude generates security of the person, peaceful relations, friendliness, amity and benevolence in society, giving rise to harmonious interpersonal relations. The Buddha says: "Never by hatred is hatred appeased, but it is appeased by kindness. This is an eternal truth."[23] Thus, adherence to the Five Precepts not only safeguards human rights but also the health of the body and the mind, generating a tension-free society with healthy homes for bringing up happy families. In Anguttara Nikaya, Buddha said that undertaking the precepts is a gift to oneself and others.
We live today, to be sure, in a distressing world. Natural disasters and disasters caused by human errors have brought pain and famine to millions of people throughout the world. Environmental disasters caused by our heartless and wanton destruction of the earth's precious resources have added inestimable costs to our lives and that cost continues widespread and out-of-control even now as we meet. Fortunately, most distressing of all, there have never been wars as destructive as the series of conflicts that have erupted since the end of the last Great War. As Gadjin M. Nagao states[24] that unlike natural disasters, war can be prevented. We know where the problem lies. We know who is at fault. We do not blame nature. But neither do we look into our own heart. Wars are created and sustained by human beings. In connection with these human disasters and foolishness, I would like to quote the Dhammapada, in which the Buddha instructed us with these words. The fool is tormented thinking these "sons belong to me, this wealth belongs to me." He himself does not belong to himself. How then can sons be his? How can wealth be his?[25]
In the next verse, the Buddha continues:
The fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent; but a fool who thinks himself wise is called a fool indeed.[26]
Further he continues and compares a fool to a spoon, a spoon is used to drink soup, but it cannot distinguish the taste. The Buddha says:
If a fool be associated with a wise man even all his life, he does not perceive the truth even as a spoon (does not perceive) the taste of soup.[27]
P. D. Premasiri maintains[28] that the problems of modern society may be explained from the Buddhist standpoint as a consequence of the separation of scientific knowledge and technological skill from moral wisdom. There is ample evidence of the proliferation of greed and hatred at all levels of social interaction in modern society. It has created economic disparity, poverty and destitution. The lack of concern for the cultivation of sympathetic concern for the well-being of others is leading to increased social conflict and tension. He’s further points out the solution is Buddhism, and says, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist way of life is the eradication of greed, hatred and delusion. If much of the psychological insanity that produces moral crises in modern society is the consequence of the proliferation of greed, hatred and delusion, then the Buddhist ideal of moral perfection can be said to be directly relevant to the social life of modern man.
According to above the Five Precepts aim at bringing about purity of body, speech, and mind at a basic level of morality, the fundamental requirement for one to become a true and complete Buddhist. Buddhist morality addresses a very common, yet crucial question: How can we judge if an action is good or bad? The answer, according to Buddhism, is a simple one. The quality of an action hinges on the intention or motivation from which it originates. If a person performs an action out of greed, hatred, and delusion, his action is considered to be unwholesome. On the other hand, if he performs an action out of love, charity, and wisdom, his action is a wholesome one. Gunapala Dharmasiri says the Buddha taught that what is basically necessary is the correct perspective of looking at things, which results in love. This is the Buddhist solution to the problem of the modern world.[29] Greed, hatred and delusion are known as the 'Three Evil Roots', while love, charity and wisdom as the 'Three Good Roots'. The word 'root' refers to the intention from which that action originates. Therefore, no matter how a person tries to disguise the nature of his action, the truth can be found by examining his thoughts, which gave rise to that action. And the mind is the source of all our speech and action. It seems simple but is not easy. When a kid is three years old, he knows it. However, when he is over eighty years old, he cannot really practice it in his daily life.
References:
1. Anguttara-Nikaya. London: Pali Text Society.
2. B. Carr, I. Mahalingam eds. 1997. Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
3. Carl B. Becker. 1990. "Buddhist Views of Suicide and Euthanasia." Philosophy East and West. Vol. 40, No. 4. p.543～555.
4. Damien Keown. 1996. "Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa." Journal of Buddhist Ethics. University of London.
5. D. T. Suzuki. 1930. Studies in the Lankavatara sutra. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Etienne Lamotte. 1987. "Religious Suicide in Early Buddhism." Buddhist Studies Review Vol. 4, No.2. p.105～118.
7. Gunapala Dharmasiri. 1979. "Buddhism and the modern world." Narada Felicitation Volume presented to the Ven.Narada Mahathera. Ed. by Piyadassi Thera. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. pp.89～103.
8. Gadjin M. Nagao. 1992. "What We Can Do in the Cause of World Peace." Journal of the Institute of Asia Studies. Vol. IX. No.2. pp.1～8.
9. Jataka. London: Pali Text Society.
10. L. de la Vallee Poussin. "Suicide" Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed by J. Hastings. England: T & T Clark, Edinburgh. Vol. 12. pp.24～26.
11. Lily de Silva. 1991. "The Scope and Contemporary Significance of the Five Precepts." Buddhist Ethics and Modern Society: An International Symposium. Ed. by Charles Wei-Hsun Fu. et el. New York: Greenwood Press. pp.143～157.
12. Majjihima-Nikaya. London: Pali Text Society.
13. Martin G. Wiltshire. 1983. "The suicide problem in the Pali canon" The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 6. p.124～140.
14. Michael Attwood. Suicide as a Response to Suffering. http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/.
15. P. D. Premasiri. 2002. Buddhist Ethics, Moral Perfection and Modern Society. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Newsletter. No.49. http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_ethics1.htm.
16. Padmasiri De Silva. 1996. "Suicide and Emotional Ambivalence: An early Buddhist perspective." Pali Buddhism. Ed by Frank J. Hoffman and Deegalle Mahinda. Curzon Press. pp. 117～132.
17. Peter Harvey. 2004. An Introduction to Buddhistm Teachings, History and Practices. England: Cambridge University Press.
18. Robert C. Childers. 1872. Dictionary of the Pali Literature. New Delhi: Asia Educational Services.
19. S. Radhakrishnan. 2003. The Dhammapada. UK: Oxford University Press.
20. Ven. Nanamoli Thero. 1966. The Patimokkha. Bangkok: Maha Makut Academy.
21. W. Pachow. 1955. A Comparative Study of the Pratimoksa. Santiniketan: The Sino-Indian Cultural Society.
Notes:
[1] Dhammapada. chapter 9, p.12.
[2] R.C. Childers. A Dictionary of the Pali Language. p.327.
[3] Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. p.454.
[4] A comparative study of the Pratimoksa. p.37.
[5] Cf. Michael Attwood - Suicide as a response to suffering. http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/.
[6] The Patimokkha. p.20; see also Sacred Books of the East Vol. XIII. (1884) p.4.
[7] The journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol.6. 1983. p.124.
[8] The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol.12 p.129.
[9] Philosophy East and West Vol. 40, No. 4 (October 1990) p.547.
[10] Buddhist Studies Review Vol. 4, No.2 (1987) p.106.
[11] Ibid. pp.106～107.
[12] Dhammapda. Chapter 10. "All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill." p.129. or Cf. Dhammika Sutra: "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world."
[13] M. II. 368～371.
[14] M. I. 371.
[15] Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra. pp.244～259.
[16] Peter Harvey. An Introduction to Buddhism Teachings, History and Practices. p.204.
[17] The scope and contemporary significance of the five precepts. p.151. or Cf. Radical Therapy: Buddhist Precepts in the Modern World. Bodhi Leaf Publication No.123, 1991.
[18] Radical Therapy: Buddhist Precepts in the Modern World. Bodhi Leaf Publication No. 123, 1991; Cf. The scope and contemporary significance of the five precepts. p.151.
[19] Majjihima Nikaya. Vol.I, p.317.
[20] Ibid. p.482.
[21] A., Vol. II, pp.74～76.
[22] Anguttara Nikaya. Vol. III, p.205; Jakata. Vol. V, pp.15～18.
[23] Dhammapada. Chapter 5. p.60.
[24] Journal of the Institute of Asia studies. Vol. IX. No.2. March, 1992. p.1
[25] The Dhammapada. p.79.
[26] Ibid. p.80.
[27] Ibid.
[28]Buddhist Ethics, Moral Perfection and Modern Society. http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ buddhist_ethics1.htm.
[29] Buddhism and the modern world. p.102.
沒有留言:
張貼留言