Pratimoksha (lay person) Vows

These 5 vows (usually referred to as precepts) are the entry-level commitments one can take as a young Buddhist practitioner. The are set forth as a set of behaviors that are to be avoided. While this could be viewed as punishing or restricting oneself, a much more healthy outlook on these vows is that they are gifts.

In the immediate sense, they are gifts to the people around you. Each action described in the vows has a direct impact on at least one other person. By committing yourself to abstain from these actions, you give piece of mind to those around you who would otherwise be harmed.

Taking the long-term view, these commitments are really a gift to one's future self. Avoiding these actions means you are not engaging in negative actions, which means you aren't polluting your mindstream with negative karmic potentials, which means you will suffer less in the future.

The vows are:

1. Avoiding killing
2. Avoiding stealing
3. Avoiding sexual misconduct
4. Avoiding lying
5. Avoiding intoxicants

You will find different wordings of each precept/vow in many other texts, but each one essentially boils down to the descriptions above.

IMPORTANT: These are not the Buddhist version of the 10 commandments! This is not the Buddha saying that if you engage in these actions, he will punish you for it. These are simply a small set of actions to be avoided because they bring about negative results (a.k.a. Suffering). These are a commitment we are making to ourselves, not some external person or deity.

However, these precepts/vows are not to be taken lightly, either. While simple non-engagement in an action means that you will not experience the negative result of that action, taking a vow to avoid an action carries with it a very strong positive karmic effect that is experienced every moment you are keeping the vow. That means, even when you are sleeping, you are generating positive karmic potential!

That's the good news. The bad news is that breaking a vow has a heavier karmic result than simply engaging in the negative action. So, one should only take the precepts/vows if you are reasonably sure you can keep them. Don't be afraid to take them, but if you know for sure you will break the vow, it's probably best not to take it. For instance, if you are headed out to a bar with some friends in the evening, it's probably best not to take the vow to avoid intoxicants.

Most preceptors (individuals qualified to oversee your commitment) will allow you to take only the first vow to avoid killing as a start. Unless you have murderous intentions in your heart, just about anyone is safe taking this vow.

Each precept/vow can be viewed as a root commitment, with several "secondary" interpretations as well. The vow is considered broken only if the root commitment is broken, but the vow serves as a reminder to avoid the secondary actions as well. In the sections below, I will discuss the root and secondary interpretations of these vows.

---

Avoid killing

Root precept/vow: Killing of human beings (including paying/inducing others to kill on your behalf)

Other levels:

1. Not killing animals
2. Not killing any sentient being
3. Not being complicit in others' killing

So, as you can see, at the root level this precept/vow does not carry with it the restriction to adopt a vegetarian diet. The Buddha himself was not vegetarian. He ate whatever he was given in his alms bowl. Even if you take the precept/vow at the level not to kill animals, so long as you don't specifically request that the butcher kill the animal on your behalf, you are still a holder of the vow. Now, this may seem like some legal technical loophole, but the distinction is important as it speaks to one's own motivation and mental activity with regard to the killing. That being said, there are distinct health and environmental advantages to adopting a vegetarian diet, and if you have the cultural and economic means to do so, it is certainly a good option to consider. But don't avoid taking the precept/vow just because you think you have to go vegetarian.

All beings fear death above all else. As an absolute base level of compassion, we must be able to make a commitment not to visit this greatest of harms upon another person. This may seem overly simplistic and obvious to most people, but can you imagine the massive difference in our world if every person could make this one simple commitment?

Now then, understand that it is impossible to live without causing the death of some other being. Depending on your definition of sentience, bacteria and other simple organisms could be considered sentient. Some people even assert the sentience of plants. Our bodies massacre thousands of microscopic life forms on a daily basis, and even the most staunch vegan still brings an end to the lives of many plants. The important thing to remember with this precept/vow is the intention in our minds. When we walk down the street and we step on a bug, it's not as if we generated the mind to intentionally kill the bug. This commitment is concerned with the intentional and purposeful ending of another being's life. This is the action to be avoided.

An extremely common question I get when I teach on this precept is on Buddhism's view of abortion and whether that would constitute the killing of a human life. Teachings on the continuity of consciousness across multiple lifetimes does indicate that consciousness is present even as early as the appearance of the zygote after conception, so a literal interpretation would seem to indicate that terminating this life form would constitute ending a (potential) human life. However, you will find no dogmatic decree that denounces abortion as murder. Certainly no genuine practicing Buddhist would call for legislating this point of view on another person. In these instances, I urge the questioner to think long and hard to honestly answer the question in their own mind and act accordingly.

---

Avoid stealing

Root precept/vow: Intentionally taking things that aren't freely given

Other levels:

1. Cheating, manipulation, coersion
2. Intentionally not returning something you have borrowed
3. Intuiting the giver's intent (e.g. "I'm sure he would have wanted me to have this")
4. Not correcting a mistake/error in your favor

Stealing heightens attachment for both parties involved. On your part, it feeds the subconscious idea that if there is something you want, it is more important that it make you happy than it is for someone else to suffer. On the other's part, it heightens their attachment to the object because it is taken away from them instead of them freely giving it away. I have heard some students scoff at a teaching that presented the avoidance of stealing as a gift to those around us. Their assertion was that such a concept implied that the vow-holder really viewed all things as theirs, and that they were allowing others to have them. This misses the true gift, however. In avoiding stealing, we aren't "giving" the object to the other. We are giving them safety and peace of mind. If somone knows they can trust us, and that we won't take from them, we give them a safe space to be in, when they are around us. They can relax, even if just a little, in the knowledge that we will not harm them.

The root precept involves the classical idea of stealing: you see something you want, you know it isn't yours, and you take it, anyway. This is clear and has no "gray areas", as you will find is common to all root precepts. However, as with all other precepts, there are secondary actions that are to be avoided as well. If we manipulate the situation such that the other person feels they have to give you the object, that is stealing, too. And it doesn't have to be something blatant like threatening violence if they don't give it to you. There are many subtle ways that we manipulate others into giving us things. Giving false impressions of need, tiny little lies (which we'll get to further down the page), and even "currying favor" with the other, sometimes even through small gifts, are some of these methods we employ to convince someone to give us something. Watch what is happening in your mind when you engage in these very subtle activities.

We also love to delude ourselves into thinking that we have been given the object, when really we haven't. Our neighbor lends us their leaf blower, then buys a brand new one and we think, "She doesn't need this old one anymore, so I'll just hang on to it." Or, just because someone has given us something similar in the past, we might think "They are such a generous person, I'm sure they would want me to have this." These are all constructs we fabricate to make ourselves feel better about taking the object. With a little honest self reflection, we can find the attachment and grasping at the heart of these mental states.

Also, we have the responsibility to correct a situation when someone has given us something when they didn't intend to do so, or if we know we haven't "earned" it. I'm sure most of us have experienced the situation where a cashier gave us back too much change. It's easy to think, "hey, this company makes millions of dollars, what is a dollar fifty to them?" Here is where we must remember what these vows/precepts are all about. It's not what is affected "out there", but what is going on in our own mind. We know that the money does not rightfully belong to us, and yet we grasp onto it, ignoring our negative mental state, thinking it will make us happy. Now, I'm not suggesting that if a cashier in an airport gives us incorrect change, and we don't realize it until we are at our destination, that we book a flight back just to return the money. But we could still try to reach out to the company to let them know what happened. And again, the amount is not important.

Finally, there are circumstances where things come to us without others giving them to us. We mistakenly pick up a jacket at an event that we thought was ours. Someone charges us the wrong price without our knowing. Someone leaves an item at our house when we are throwing a party. I'm sure you can think of other such situations. In these instances, there is no break (root or secondary) of the precept. If you discover the error later on, and it's not possible to give it back, then consider donating the object (or the money) to someone else in need.

---

Avoid sexual misconduct

Root precept/vow: Forcing or manipulating another to have sex. Adultery is also included

Other levels:

1. Not practicing safe sex
2. Engaging in sex for pure pleasure, not regarding the other(s)

First of all, this vow/precept is not about the following:

1. Celibacy
2. Monogamy (unless you have made that commitment separately, see below)
3. Sexual preference
4. Masturbation
5. Pornography (necessarily, again see below)

Put simply it is a commitment to engage in sexual activity only in a mindful manner, holding compassion for your partner as paramount.

Sexual energy is very strong. It is the biological drive to continue our species, which is deeply ingrained in our psyche. And while it is true that puritanistic ideas about sex and sexuality have easliy done as much harm to society as sexual predators have, we cannot engage in this activity without mindfulness and restraint.

Sexual energy is also closely linked with spiritual energy. The eastern concept of Tihn and Than, the balance of energies within our nervous system has much to say about how sexual activity depletes our spiritual energy. Extremely high-level tantric practices engage sexual activity as part of the ritual. Furthermore, orgasm is one of the four mundane moments that provide for the spontaneous clear light mind to arise. So, this energy is not something to be "played around with" or regarded lightly. Since we are engaging in a spiritual practice to train our minds, it is wise for us to pay attention to this type of energy.

This vow/precept most definitely is involved in our attitude toward another person with which we are participating in sexual activity. Rape, whether violent or not, is obviously a break from the root. Just like our examples above regarding stealing, coercing your partner, even gently, constitutes misconduct. Now then, if your partner has preferences where they want to be dominated, that is another matter, but these are matters that are extremely delicate, and both parties must have a clear understanding of each other's feelings first.

Monogamy is involved only in the circumstance where you have made a commitment to somone that you will engage in sexual activity only with them and not with others. This doesn't necessarily mean a marriage vow or legal commitment. If you have made any intentional commitment to be exclusive to one person, then have sex with another, you have broken this vow from the root. And the commitment doesn't even have to be verbalized. If you have mentally committed yourself to another, this precept applies. While we can't be responsible for a mistaken assumption on the part of another that we have made such a commitment, again these precepts speak to what is going on in our own minds.

Finally, regarding pornography, this precept is only involved if you are forcing or coercing another person to engage in the production of pornography. Simply viewing pornographic material does not constitute a break from the root. Now then, similar to the argument about killing and vegetarianism, if you contribute to the demand for pornography, doesn't that perpetuate the desire in others to produce it? This is something each one of us must meet with mindfulness and careful contemplation.

---

Avoid lying

Root precept/vow: Intentionally communicating (verbal or written) something you know to be untrue with malicious or selfish intent

Other levels:

1. Intentionally telling any falsehood
2. Insinuating or cajoling
3. Not correcting false presumptions about oneself

This is usually a precept that generates a lot of discussion when I teach it. It usually devolves into a discussion about how the concept of "truth" is ultimately subjective and can't be quantified. So let me try to make it simple. If you forward an idea, either through speech or writing, that you know in your own mind is not true, for the purposes of harming another or furthering your own gains, then you have broken this vow from the root.

There is a scene in the movie Liar Liar where Jim Carrey's character explains to his son that sometimes people tell lies because they don't want to hurt someone else. "When your mommy was pregnant with you, she gained 40 pounds; there was nothing she wouldn't eat, and Daddy was scared. But when she'd ask me, 'How do l look ?' l'd say, 'Honey, you look great. You're glowing.' lf l had told Mommy she looked like a cow, it would have hurt her feelings." Life is full of these types of situations, particularly when children are involved. Sometimes brutal honesty does not constitute "skillful means," and in order to be compassionate, we may need to omit or change certain information temporarily.

Now then, I'm not giving us all license to tell "little white lies" whenever we want with no recourse. Even these little untruths carry with them a negative karmic result. It's just that someitmes we take on that negativity out of compassion for others. Still, it is worth considering that being fully honest, even if painfully, lends credibility to all the other things we say. In the example above, do we honestly thing that the mother doesn't know she has gained weight? If her husband were to simply be honest and say she was huge, but that she shouldn't worry about it because it's a temporary situation, wouldn't that be better in the long run? I don't know; having never been married to a pregnant woman, maybe such a course could lead to one's own demise.

Why is it so important that we avoid falsehoods? Most of us are swimming in ignorance anyway; purposely misleading someone to believe something thst is untrue on top of that exacerbates an already bad situation. Furthermore, lying only reinforces an incorrect self narrative, which is usually a defense mechanism against some suffring that we should be turning towards and working with. Even worse than that, when we are caught in a lie, it does serious damage to others' trust in us. If they don't trust us, that makes it so much harder for us to benefit them.

---

Avoid intoxicants

Root precept/vow: Ingesting substances that lead to negligence, infatuation and heedlessness

What is really being covered by this precept is drinking alcohol or taking narcotics (that are not prescribed by a doctor) to the point of being drunk or high. It is not, necessarily a strict prohibition against any consumption whatsoever, although I think you will find that one drink makes the possibility of a second drink more probably and so on from there. But yes, a break from the root only happens when you consume to the point of being heedless and negligent

Some preceptors will allow you to take this precept at one of two levels:

1. Severly restricting alcohol usage, except for an occasional drink from time to time
2. Complete avoidance of alcohol

Narcotic use (again, outside of a prescription) is generally prohibited as it can take much less ingestion of these to get us to the point of being heedless.

Having worked with this precept at both levels, I can tell you that the second option (complete avoidance) is so much easier than the first. Watch your own mind as you consume alcohol. Do you find that the first drink "loosens you up?" Do you find that your inhibitions are lowered, your speech less mindful, and your overall mood more careless? Also, I found that people around me were much more respectful of my decision not to partake at all, than if I had already had a drink. Still, your experience will most likely be very different, so experiment with yourself for a while before taking this vow/precept.

To illustrate, consider this story:

Intoxicants are a real hindrance to our mindfulness. If we are not mindful, we are completely under the control of our ignorance, anger and attachment. If we are completely under their control, we are doomed to continue a cycle of negative karma and suffering.

Finally, this precept can help us to work with what else might be an intoxicant for us. Alcohol and drugs are the obvious targets, but what other subtle obstructions to your mindfulness might be lurking unseen? Perhaps television or Internet usage, video games or movies, sports or other activities. Anything that consumes us and alters our mind state to the point where we act or think without mindfulness is a candidate for being an intoxicatnt. Again, these are not covered by the root precept, and the intent of this precept is not to make you the most boring person on the planet, one's practice can only be enhanced by some honest, careful contemplation on how one interacts with these objects of obsession.