Split (1)

train · 14.6k rows

category_1 stringclasses 162 values	search_query_1 stringclasses 287 values	search_type_1 stringclasses 2 values	search_engine_input_1 stringclasses 574 values	url_1 stringlengths 22 468	title_1 stringlengths 1 77	text_raw_1 stringlengths 1.17k 459k	text_window_1 stringlengths 545 2.63k	stance_1 stringclasses 2 values	category_2 stringclasses 162 values	search_query_2 stringclasses 287 values	search_type_2 stringclasses 2 values	search_engine_input_2 stringclasses 574 values	url_2 stringlengths 22 468	title_2 stringlengths 1 77	text_raw_2 stringlengths 1.17k 459k	text_window_2 stringlengths 545 2.63k	stance_2 stringclasses 2 values
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/indian-animal-ethics/2747B910674DA7D3E891B49DFF5F0F44	Indian Animal Ethics \| Think \| Cambridge Core	Abstract Ancient India is famous as a home for the ethical concept of ahimsa, meaning ‘non-violence’. Among other things, this moral principle demanded avoiding cruelty towards animals and led to the widespread adoption of vegetarianism. In this article, it is argued that the reasoning which led the ancient Indians to avoid violence towards animals might actually provide a more powerful rationale for vegetarianism than the utilitarian rationale that is more prevalent among animal rights activists nowadays. Moral sceptics have always liked to point to the phenomenon of cultural disagreement in order to undermine absolute claims in morality. Already in antiquity Sextus Empiricus, the most important author of the sceptical Pyrrhonist school, pointed out the wide variation in norms and customs around the world. Particularly attention-grabbing are his claims about sexual morality around the world: the Persians marry their mothers, the Egyptians their sisters! But he also mentions that foreign peoples are more tolerant than the Greeks are when it comes to things like theft, infanticide and cannibalism. Still today, one of the most powerful arguments for ethical relativism comes from cultural relativism. Who are we to say that the beliefs and behaviours of other peoples are wrong? Wouldn't they say the same about us? You've probably heard just this line of argument if you've ever been in a philosophy class. Taken to its logical extreme, it would put moral disagreement on a par with differences in manners. Some people eat with their fingers, some use chopsticks, some use a fork and knife; just so, some people are relaxed about theft, while others punish it severely. The usual response to this move is to mention some kind of extreme moral abomination, to remind the relativist that their tolerance probably has its limits. Of course you won't object to eating with fingers, when and where it is culturally appropriate. But you'd be hard pressed to accept that, say, inflicting pain and suffering on innocents for fun is wrong only by the moral code of our society. The same goes for cultures that are removed from us in time, rather than place. We typically think that the abandonment of certain practices of the past, such as infanticide and slavery, are a mark of moral progress. If there is a lingering uneasiness with this sort of argument, it is perhaps because the moral beliefs of other cultures are being measured by our moral standards. This looks judgemental and arrogant: we know better than they do, or did. Ironically enough, we here come into conflict with other values we tend to cherish today, like tolerance and open-mindedness. So here is another way to respond to the relativist: point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better. This avoids the charge of cultural imperialism, while supporting the idea that there are general, objective truths in ethics. A nice example would be one that, as it happens, was also mentioned by Sextus Empiricus: the fact that some other ancient cultures did not allow the eating of meat. Famously, large parts of India are still vegetarian, which goes back to the fact that religious traditions there – especially the Buddhists and Jains – have avoided violence against animals for more than two thousand years. Ancient India, then: here is a culture that could rightly condemn modern Western culture, at least on this one issue. You'll be especially inclined to agree with that if you are yourself a vegetarian or a vegan. But even if you aren't, you would probably admit at least that the evils of factory farming are indeed evils, and that a more humane approach – one that would bring our practices closer to those of the ancient Indians – is needed. But before leaping to conclusions, we might want to ask why ancient Indians were so reluctant to inflict harm on animals. Doing the right thing is obviously good, but doing the right thing for the right reason would be even better. Here we run into a bit of a surprise. Nowadays, vegetarianism is occasionally motivated by health concerns or environmental concerns. But usually the reason given is that eating meat violates the rights or interests of animals. As Isaac Bashevis Singer put it, ‘I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens.’ By contrast, the original impulse to show benevolence towards animals in India was arguably a selfish one. Violence against them, indeed violence in general, was thought to incite retribution, perhaps in the next cycle of incarnation. Thus some, especially those who adopted an ascetic or ‘renouncer’ way of life in defiance of traditional Vedic culture, followed the principle of ahimsa: ‘non-violence’. On this interpretation, the apparent moral heroism shown by some of these renouncers was just that, only apparent heroism. You may know how Jain monks, in particular, avoid travelling in the rainy season, sweep the ground in front of them as they walk and strain their water before drinking, to avoid inadvertently killing insects and other minute creatures. Another rule is to abstain from using fire, and for the same reason: bugs might fly into the fire and be immolated. While this looks like the most extreme form of care for other living things, it might actually be an extreme form of care for the self. In the Indian context, a theory of karma was used to explain the reward and retribution meted out to people for their actions. The Jains compared karma to ‘dust’ which sticks to the soul, and thought killing another living thing was a paradigm way of attracting the particles of bad karma. They feared that the karma acquired by harming animals, even insects too small to see, could require them to live again so that that harm could be requited. At this point the Indian ethic of non-violence is starting to look less attractive. The whole project concerned the interests of the individual moral agent, not those who were being spared violence, whether animals or other people. So this was, it seems, not really even moral behaviour. It was just calculated self-interest. But again, we should not leap to conclusions. This line of criticism threatens to do what we were trying to avoid, by imposing our own moral beliefs and intuitions on the people of another time and place. To demand that vegetarianism should be motivated by the interests of animals, if it is to be properly moral, is to assume that all moral behaviour worthy of the name must value the interests of others. But this isn't how ancient morality usually worked. In ancient Greece, ancient China and ancient India, we find what philosophers call ‘eudaimonist’ ethics. The name comes from the Greek word eudaimonia, which just means ‘happiness’. (I guess we call it ‘eudaimonist’ because ‘happiness ethics’ sounds ridiculous.) The idea here is that a moral agent ought to be virtuous because it is good for the agent to be virtuous. It will make them happy, not in the sense of being merely satisfied or content, but in the sense of enjoying a well-rounded, flourishing life. In general, there is a puzzle about how eudaimonist ethics can explain altruism. This means acting for the benefit of others, especially when it undermines one's own apparent interests. The Greeks would unhesitatingly assume that a virtuous man should die for the sake of his family, or city. How would that be a way for the virtuous man himself to be happy? Well, remember that what we're after is living a flourishing overall life, not just living as long as possible. It would actually be worse for the moral agent to live to a ripe old age, if he could only do it by showing cowardice. Of course a virtuous person will still benefit fellow citizens, friends and family members by performing excellent actions. But these actions are ultimately taken towards the end of that individual person's own fulfilment and happiness. The benefits conferred on others are only a kind of happy by-product. The same, then, could go for the cow or insect that goes unharmed by the vegetarian, cautious, fire-avoiding Jain monks. What the monks are trying to do is to live a blameless life. In furtherance of this goal, they eschew violence against cows, insects, indeed all living things. Even plants were thought to be potential recipients of violence, but harm against them is of a lower order than harm against animals, so they may be eaten as (literally) the lesser of two evils. The eudaimonist nature of Indian ahimsa fits with the way that Jain and Buddhist monks actually got their food. Normally they received it in the form of donations from laypersons, that is, adherents of the same religious tradition who had not sworn themselves to the rigours of monastic asceticism. In theory at least, the food given to the monks was ‘left over’, not made with them in mind. Just as a modern-day vegetarian might be willing to eat roadkill or meat that would otherwise have been thrown out – no sense in letting it go to waste – so these monks were willing to take advantage of violence committed by others. Jains would, for instance, accept boiled water prepared by laypersons, since it was the laypersons who were using the fire, and who would be on the hook for killing any stray insects. Buddhists even allowed themselves to eat meat not intended originally for them, something the Jains considered to be crossing the line. They in fact polemicized against the Buddhists and spoke as if this concession amounted to bloodthirstiness. But the Buddhists justified the practice on the same grounds invoked by the Jains. It might seem strange to suppose that someone can avoid blame just by getting someone else to do the dirty work. Within a eudaimonist framework though, it makes a certain amount of sense. What matters is the individual moral agent, not the network of actions being performed by other people around them. In particular, in ancient Indian eudaimonism what mattered was the agent's intentions. What led to the build-up of bad karma was forming violent intentions, as well as acting on them. This is illustrated by a Jain story about a king who sought to preserve his moral purity, and thus avoided killing animals in ritual sacrifice. Instead, he sacrificed a ‘rooster’ that was in fact made of flour. To the king's surprise and horror, he arrived in the afterlife and found himself being punished. His intention in the sacrifice had been violent, no less than if he'd slaughtered a real rooster. The story sheds further light on the monastic practice of accepting food prepared by laypersons, who may have committed at least minor acts of violence (e.g. lighting fires) to make the food. It was not a case of moral free riding, but came down to the question of who had formed, and acted upon, violent intentions. The monks were simply taking leftover food. Things would have been very different if they had deliberately incited the laypeople to make them dinner. Again, we see that within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals’ rights or interests. Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’. Arjuna should simply do what he is meant to do and solely because he is meant to do it, without minding one way or another about what results. The Gita draws an explicit parallel between Arjuna's situation and the case of ritual sacrifice. It argues that slaughtering an animal and offering it to the gods out of ‘devotion’ (bhakti) is far from being disharmonious and disruptive in intention. To the contrary, it is a case of the purest piety, a submission to the divine cosmic order that ‘holds the world together’. Another text of the Vedic tradition, the Laws of Manu, likewise states that ritual animal sacrifice is not, contrary to appearances, a violation of the ethic of non-violence, because it is not undertaken out of violent intentions but out of religious duty. As we can see, the Vedic tradition too accepted that non-violence is a worthwhile principle, perhaps under pressure from the renouncer movements. So Vedic authors had to present traditional sacrificial rites as being in accordance with this principle. Their rationalization may look like a loophole, but if so, it was one much too narrow to accommodate a casual steak dinner. From all this I would conclude that the ancient Indian ethic of non-violence does offer a worthwhile perspective on the much-discussed issue of animal welfare. Living in a world dominated by utilitarian considerations, we tend to evaluate moral actions based on their concrete results. So we may find it hard to relate to benevolence towards animals that is not primarily motivated by a concern to minimize animal suffering. But there's no denying that the Indian ethic of non-violence did minimize such suffering, and continues to do so today. And there is at least one way that ahimsa could even be a better motive for vegetarianism than the utilitarian calculation of a modern day animal ethicist like Peter Singer. A common justification for continuing to eat meat is that vegetarianism, and especially veganism, are fairly demanding ways to live. The payoff in outcomes doesn't seem to make it worthwhile. Will even a single cow or chicken survive thanks to my living as a vegetarian for the rest of my life? Presumably not, since my individual dietary choices are the tiniest of drops in the enormous bucket of global food demand. So why should I bother? This is of course a familiar problem. One person recycling, or turning off the lights at home, is not really going to do anything to help avert global warming. One person could donate their entire wealth to charity, without being sure that, as a result, even a single person will avoid starving to death or dying of a preventable disease. Problems of global scale have global magnitude, in comparison to which individual action becomes a mere rounding error. The obvious utilitarian response is to say that if enough people make the right choices, then it will make a difference. If, as some studies suggest, 5 per cent of Europeans are vegetarian, that surely means a real drop in total meat consumption. But the Indian ethical theory offers an additional response to this problem. Even if your choosing not to eat meat will barely help any actual animals, it is going to help you, because it will make you less violent in thought and action. And being less violent is part of being more happy. Something to consider tonight, as you tuck into your dinner of lentils.	Rather, it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented and effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain. In the case of the Buddhists, it would be the outcome of having taken on board the Buddha's teaching that desire leads inevitably to suffering. Through long and rigorous ascetic discipline, desires could be quietened and ultimately eliminated. The result would be deep compassion towards other people and living things, embodied in what the Buddhists called ‘skilful action’ (kusala), action that grows from a correct understanding of things. So this was far from a self-interested moral theory. Such action can never flow from violent intentions, which are the ultimate example of desire flowing from attachment to things like wealth or pleasure. It's attachments like these that make people fight wars, argue with their family over inheritance, and yes, eat meat. At this point one might imagine a critic speaking up. If it is intention and not results that matter, then shouldn't it be all right to commit ‘violent’ actions so long as they do not stem from a violent state of mind? Actually we don't need to imagine a critic saying this, because the point was actually made by opponents of the Buddhists and Jains in Indian antiquity. The most famous example is in the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical interlude found in the enormous epic called the Mahabharata. In the Gita, a warrior named Arjuna refuses to fight in a war against his own kin, but is then persuaded by the god Krishna that he should pick up his bow and join battle. In so doing, he will simply be submitting to his path and purpose. To forestall the worry that this would require violence on Arjuna's part, Krishna sets out a theory of ‘unattached action’.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/buddhism-mahayana/resources/buddhism-mahayana-law-and-ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna / Law and Ethics	Buddhism: Mahāyāna Law and Ethics Buddhist Law In Buddhism, no text explicitly lays out laws pertaining to Buddhists. While there are religious principles derived from various teachings, these are not utilised or viewed as binding laws. Rather, they are presented and understood as moral precepts. Some streams of Mahayana Buddhism have a codified set of rules and regulations for their specific monastic community. These are often seen as laws that govern the conduct of monastics. However, there is no court of appeal or other elements that one might expect in a modern legal system. The most serious offences for monks/nuns are punishable by a form of ‘disrobing’, which excludes them from the monastic community. Guiding Ethical Principles Moral Precepts Mahāyāna Buddhism codifies ethical behaviour in the form of precepts. There is no single set of precepts; some Buddhists may voluntarily undertake five, while others may follow extensive lists. The underlying principle is that an individual seeks to let go of their sense of ego and attachment to the self. It is believed that by letting go of one’s ego and sense of self, an individual can act from a compassionate (karuṇā) and wise (prajñā) state of mind. The number of precepts a Buddhist commits to depends on their position within the organisational structure. There are five general precepts that are usually considered to be the bare minimum a Buddhist should follow, which are: Refrain from killing or injuring living creatures. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from committing sexual misconduct. Refrain from ‘wrong speech’, such as lying and gossiping. Refrain from using intoxicants that cloud the mind, such as alcohol or non-prescription mind-affecting drugs. Merit (Puñya) Puñya (puñña in Pāli) refers to the concept of ‘merit', ‘meritorious action' or ‘virtue'. It is the primary attribute sought by Buddhists to develop better karma to help in their spiritual goals. Mahāyāna schools generally hold that the accumulation of merit is necessary to progress spiritually. Merit can be acquired through various ways such as gift-giving, following moral precepts and practising meditation or rituals. ‘Field of merit’ is a related concept which refers to the idea that good deeds performed towards a special individual, group or object is worthy of more merit. For example, veneration towards the Śākyamuni Buddha provides the greatest field of merit. Some Mahāyāna schools such as Nichiren, Pure Land and Tiantai/Tendai consider texts (such as the Lotus Sūtra) or particular bodhisattvas to provide great fields of merit. As such, Buddhists may perform rituals of reverence in order to gain merit. In some cases, Buddhists may perform merit-making rituals toward a bodhisattva in exchange for favour or protection from the bodhisattva. Karmic Debt A common concept that underpins ethical decision-making is the idea of karmic debt (related to the concept of karma). This refers to the idea that beings cannot avoid the negative results of their unskilful or unwholesome actions. As such, all bad deeds or actions must be eventually paid. This notion may underpin some of the moral decision-making of many Buddhists as people seek to avoid committing karmically bad actions. Conversely, developing karmically good actions reaps good results (e.g., happiness, good fortune, etc.). Compassion (Karuṇā) The virtue of compassion (karuṇā) is emphasised in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly important in Mahāyāna traditions. Compassion is generally understood as the deep care and concern for the suffering of others. Mahāyāna schools tend to view compassion as the necessary complement to wisdom or insight (prajñā). Compassion is also one of four virtuous qualities an individual should cultivate. Non-violence (Ahiṃsā) In Buddhism, ahiṃsā (avihiṃsā in Pāli, meaning ‘non-injury’, ‘non-killing’ or ‘non-violence’) refers to the concept of not causing harm to other living things. Adherence to the principle of non-violence is thought to generate positive karma while defying the principle is believed to bring about negative karma. The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage. Some monastics in South Korea may also marry and live with their partner in monasteries. Divorce Generally, Buddhism has no religious objection to divorce. Social and cultural influences play a major role in determining the level of acceptance when it comes to divorce and remarriage. The Cultural Atlas team acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands throughout Australia on whose country we have the privilege to live and work. We pay our respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians past, present and emerging.	The concept of ahiṃsā forms the basis of vegetarianism for many Buddhists, as well as the tolerance towards all forms of life. Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce Sexuality There are no strict sexual ethical guidelines presented in Buddhism for lay Buddhists (apart from the fourth moral precept of refraining from sexual misconduct). Rather, sexual and reproductive ethics are based on general ethical concepts such as moral precepts and the doctrine of karma. Buddhists are generally open to the use of birth control. However, other topics related to family planning such as abortion or reproductive technologies are usually influenced by factors other than religion (such as culture, family perceptions, financial security, etc.). Sexual Misconduct Avoidance of sexual misconduct is one of the main moral precepts expected to be observed by all Buddhists. ‘Sexual misconduct’ for lay Buddhists generally refers to sexual offences such as non-consensual sexual acts, sexual activity with minors or those protected by the law, and adultery. It can also broadly refer to any irresponsible use of sexuality (such as promiscuity, an overindulgence of sex or sexual addiction). Marriage Buddhism recognises the importance of marriage as a social institution. However, it regards monastic life as an ideal. As a result, marriage is usually not understood as a religious concern, but rather a matter of society in which the partners assume obligations to each other. Monastics tend not to officiate wedding ceremonies and usually will not participate as a matchmaker. Nonetheless, it is customary for newlyweds to visit a local monastery after their wedding to receive a blessing and in some cases perform a simple ceremony. Most schools of Buddhism require monastics to remain celibate, with the exception of monastics in Japan. Such monastics are permitted to marry, and many major Japanese temples house married monastics with their families. Such temples tend to be family-run and passed down the male lineage.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...	Ethics in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism Buddhism represents a vast and rich intellectual tradition which, until recently, received very little influence from Western philosophy. This tradition contains a variety of teachings about how to live and what to do in various situations. Buddhism tells us to purify our own minds and to develop lovingkindness and compassion for all beings. The various forms of Buddhism offer systematic frameworks for understanding the traits of character and types of actions that cause problems for ourselves and others, as well as those qualities and actions that help to heal the suffering of the world. When starting a Buddhist path, one agrees to follow rules of moral discipline that forbid various destructive actions; but once the mind has reached a very high degree of spiritual development, the rules are transcended and one acts spontaneously for the benefit of others. Buddhism upholds lofty and demanding ethical values, but recognizes the need to adapt those values to the conditions of the real world. From a Buddhist point of view, animal life is precious, and human life is even more so. Ideally we should refrain from killing animals, adopt a vegetarian diet, renounce all forms of violence and live in harmony with nature. Yet there are some difficult cases in which violence and killing seem almost unavoidable. Some Buddhist writers have offered guidance on how to act appropriately and realistically in such situations, without abandoning the compassion and lovingkindness that form the basis of the Buddhist approach to ethics. The main goal of Buddhist practice is to reach freedom from suffering by coming to see the world as it actually is and abandoning the distorted projections that our thoughts and emotions create. A very important means to reach this goal is to refrain from destructive actions, since these actions cause harm to others and create mental disturbances in us that generate suffering and keep us from seeing things as they are. Moreover, according to Buddhist teachings, those who reach the goal of freedom thenceforward act in a loving and compassionate manner towards others, helping these others in turn to be more happy and free. Ethical action is thus both an important part of the Buddhist path and an important aspect of the results said to flow from that path. There is no word in Buddhist languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan that exactly corresponds to the English word “ethics.” The term most commonly translated as “ethics” is Sanskrit śīla (Pāli sīla, Tib. tshul khrims.) But this word actually means something more like “moral discipline”; someone has śīla when, having made a commitment to follow a certain set of moral rules, she is actually disposed to follow those rules. There are central concepts of Western ethical theory that have no exact equivalent in Buddhist texts. It’s not clear that Buddhist thinkers have a concept of moral obligation at all. Moreover, Buddhist texts often make points which we can understand in terms of the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value – that is, the distinction between what is valuable in itself and what is valuable as a means to bring about something else. But they have no technical terms that correspond to “intrinsic value” and “instrumental value.” And many statements that can be read as being about ethics can also be understood in a non-normative way, as descriptions of how a spiritually developed being actually behaves. Nevertheless, there are many statements in Buddhist scriptures and treatises that are hard to understand otherwise than as ethical claims. The Sanskrit terms kuśala and śubha are used in a strongly evaluative way and often translated as “good,” though in some contexts there are other possible translations (“skillful” for kuśala, “beautiful” for śubha). Buddhist texts talk about what we should do, and hold up models of spectacular altruism for our admiration and emulation. And Buddhism attaches considerable importance to systems of rules that codify moral discipline. A consideration that has motivated many Buddhists to vow to follow rules of moral discipline is a wish to avoid the karmic consequences of actions that harm others. These consequences have traditionally been understood largely in terms of rebirth in the various realms of cyclic existence. In the earliest texts, there are five such realms: the hells, the worlds of hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, and the heavenly worlds of the gods (Skt. deva). Later texts add a sixth realm, that of the titans (Skt. asura). The hells are terrible places of torture and suffering, in which beings who are dominated by anger and hatred are cut to pieces, burned, frozen, and tormented by demonic apparitions that are in fact projections of their own distorted minds. Hungry ghosts are depicted with large bellies and tiny mouths; driven by greed, they seek endlessly for something to eat or drink, but even when they find a morsel they can swallow, it turns into filth or fire in their mouths. Animals are seen as dominated by stupidity, limited to a fixed set of possible behaviors and primarily trying simply to survive. In this system, the human world is primarily characterized by the instrumental pursuit of objects of desire. The titans are powerful beings who live in relatively pleasant circumstances, but are driven by competitiveness and obsessively envious of the splendor of the gods. They continually plot to invade the heavens. Unfortunately for the titans, when they actually do battle with the gods, they always lose. The gods of the lower heavens, the heavens of desire, live in palaces of astonishing beauty and exquisite sensual pleasure. Blinded by pride, they disregard the suffering of those below them and ignore the fact that their high status is impermanent: they, too, will die. At the top of cyclic existence, in the heavens of form and the formless heavens, other gods rest in a state of peaceful, quiet bliss, with almost no manifest suffering and for vast, but finite, periods of time. Actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion have a tendency to drive those who do them into the three lower realms of suffering: the hells, the hungry ghost realm, and the animal realm. Actions carried out with better motivations, but still infused with a sense of self, tend to produce rebirth in the three higher realms of titans, humans, and gods. Vast numbers of sentient beings are trapped in this cycle, continually wandering from one realm to another, unable to escape and forced to experience the forms of suffering that exist in each realm. The human realm is particularly fortunate, because it is only in this realm that one can attain Awakening, which liberates one from the whole cycle. Some modern teachers have interpreted the doctrine of the six realms as a psychological process unfolding in this one life: the realms are understood as the different ways we understand the world when under the influence of the reactive emotions of anger, greed, stupidity, desire, competitiveness, and pride. (See, e.g., McLeod 2002, 146–51.) But historically, most Buddhists have taken this system literally, as a cosmological account of how the world works and what happens when we die. Therefore, to avoid the actions most likely to drive them into the lower realms, many Buddhists have undertaken to obey rules of moral discipline. The two most important systems of moral discipline in Buddhism are the Five Precepts, which apply to lay people, and the Vows of Individual Liberation (Skt. prātimokṣa) which apply to monks and nuns. Accepting these commitments is a crucial part of what defines someone as a Buddhist lay person or as a Buddhist monastic. The Five Precepts are quite similar to basic lists of prohibitions in other great world religions: those who take them make a commitment to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drunkenness. The Vows of Individual Liberation are stricter, ruling out all forms of sexual activity and laying down detailed regulations for monastic etiquette and deportment. Following the Five Precepts is said to lead to rebirth as a human and prevent rebirth in one of the lower realms of suffering. This form of moral discipline helps people develop self-respect, so that they are confident in appearing in any gathering. It prevents many forms of trouble and suffering that harmful actions produce for both the agent and others. Meanwhile, the Vows of Individual Liberation help the monastic community function in a way that serves the spiritual development of the monks and nuns. They also create a foundation for meditation practice that leads toward freedom. Other notable aspects of Buddhist moral discipline are captured in a list known as the Ten Good Courses of Action (Pāli dasa-kusala-kamma-patha). In the Tibetan tradition, these are referred to simply as the Ten Virtues (dge ba bcu). They are negatively phrased: each of the Ten Good Courses of Action just consists in refraining from the corresponding element of the Ten Bad Courses of Action (mi dge ba bcu). The Ten Bad Courses of Action are: Taking life Stealing Sexual misconduct Lying Divisive speech Harsh speech Idle chitchat Covetousness Malice Wrong view (See Keown, 1992, 30 for this list, with somewhat different translations.) Note that the behaviors forbidden by four of the five precepts are included in this list, with the exception of drunkenness. The reason for omitting drunkenness may be that getting drunk does not necessarily harm others, though it may put one in a state in which the risk of harming others is much greater. The Ten Bad Courses of Action are traditionally classified into three actions of the body (1–3), four forms of speech (4–7), and three mental states (8–10). Among the actions of speech, divisive speech means speaking in a way as to aggravate conflict and divide friends from each other. Harsh speech is speech motivated by anger that wounds another emotionally through insulting and severely critical words. Idle chitchat is speech which fills time and absorbs attention without communicating anything of practical or spiritual importance. The three mental states on the list are closely related to the three poisons, which are among the most fundamental psychological causes of the cycle of existence and the suffering that comes with it. The three poisons are attraction, aversion and indifference. When we encounter an experience that appears to strengthen and confirm our sense of self, we are attracted to that experience and attempt to prolong or repeat it. When an experience appears to threaten our sense of self, we react with aversion, trying to avoid it or push it away. Any experience that doesn’t fall into these two categories seems unimportant; since we are indifferent to it, we ignore that experience. Thus, in Buddhist teachings, indifference is very closely associated with ignorance, confusion, and incorrect understandings of the way things are. Completely overcoming these three poisons leads to liberation from cyclic existence, compassion, joy, freedom, and happiness. The lineages of Buddhism that have survived to the present day can be grouped into three traditions: Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Theravāda, or “Teaching of the Elders,” is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and in the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. The Mahāyāna, or “Great Way,” originated in India, but is now the principal form of Buddhism in the Chinese cultural sphere, which includes China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. East Asian forms of the Mahāyāna are outside the scope of this article, but I will discuss Indian texts from the early period of this tradition. The Vajrayāna, or “Diamond Way,” is practiced by Buddhists in the Himalayas and parts of Central Asia, including Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia. A small number of Japanese Buddhists also belong to the Vajrayāna. Both historically and doctrinally, the principal difference between the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna lies in the goals they recommend. Most Theravāda practitioners aspire to become Saints (Skt. Arhat, Pāli Arahant). The life in which someone becomes a Saint is that person’s last life; this person will no longer be reborn, but will instead enter Nirvana at death. A small minority of Theravādins, however, aspire to become Buddhas. As they understand that goal, a Buddha is someone who rediscovers the truths of Buddhism after they have been lost to the world, and teaches them to others so as to benefit them. The Theravāda tradition maintains that, like Saints, Buddhas pass into Nirvana at death. Becoming a Buddha is believed to be more difficult and take more time than becoming a Saint; it is a demanding path for a small minority. A practitioner who is on the way to becoming a Buddha is known in Sanskrit as a bodhisattva (Pāli bodhisatta). By contrast, all serious Mahāyānists take the bodhisattva vow, promising to become Buddhas in order to help all beings. Indeed, some scholars have concluded that the Mahāyāna movement began within the framework of early Buddhism as a group of practitioners holding the same doctrines and embracing the same rituals as their fellow Buddhists, and distinguished only by their common choice to follow the path to Buddhahood. However, over time, many other differences evolved. In particular, mature Mahāyāna traditions tend to hold that those who have become Buddhas, even after they die, continue to manifest in various forms and in various parts of cyclic existence in order to carry on the work of benefiting beings. They will remain in cyclic existence until all sentient beings have reached liberation. Followers of Vajrayāna also embrace the commitment to become Buddhas for the benefit of all beings. The Vajrayāna can be seen as a branch of the Mahāyāna, since it shares the same spiritual goal. The main differences between the Vajrayāna and other forms of Mahāyāna concern ritual, iconography, and meditation techniques. Those who practice Vajrayāna seek to attain Mahāyāna goals using Tantric means. The Theravāda is the only surviving tradition of Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. But at one time, there were many such traditions: eighteen, according to one influential classification. However, apart from the Theravāda, all of these traditions have died out. There is no generally accepted term to refer collectively to all the Buddhist lineages that held Sainthood as their primary spiritual aspiration. In Mahāyāna texts, these forms of Buddhism are called Hīnayāna, the “lesser vehicle”, a pejorative term. More neutrally, these texts sometimes refer to Buddhists who aspire to Sainthood as Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka) and their path as the Way of the Disciples (Skt. Śrāvaka-yāna). Some scholars have proposed the term “Mainstream Buddhism.” Mahāyāna texts repeatedly affirm the superiority of their approach to the non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhist practice. According to these texts, the Disciples wish to attain Nirvana for themselves alone, so that they disregard the needs of others. Since they choose a less difficult path, their aspiration is inferior. Since they propose to abandon other beings trapped in the prison of cyclic existence, on this account, the Disciples lack compassion. These criticisms may be unfair; it can be argued that they are directed at a straw man and not at the real Theravāda tradition. Most lineages of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, value and practice the Four Divine Abidings (Pāli brahma-vihāra), also known as the Four Immeasurables. These are lovingkindness (Pāli metta), compassion (karuṇā), joy (pamudita) and equanimity (upekkhā). The content of lovingkindness is a wish for others to be happy. Lovingkindness, which can be a very enjoyable state, is a kind of opening to others and to the reality of their lives. The content of compassion is a wish for others to be free from suffering. This quality makes it possible to be fully aware and present in the face of others’ suffering. Joy is traditionally understood as the ability to rejoice in the happiness and good qualities of others. To operate in someone, joy requires the absence of envy, jealousy and self-hatred. Equanimity makes it possible to see situations as they are, without preference or prejudice. It makes it possible to extend the other three Divine Abidings equally to all beings. Most emotions that ordinary people experience are overcome or transformed by the path; someone who was fully awake would not abide in or act from greed, hatred, competitiveness, or pride, for example. But the Four Divine Abidings are emotions in which awake people rest and from which they act. Not only are these qualities recognized in the Theravāda, they are extensively practiced in that tradition. In fact, the Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Lovingkindness, is one of the most important and frequently recited scriptures in Southeast Asia today. Any discussion of similarities and differences between Theravāda and Mahāyāna should take these facts into account. The Mahāyāna path to awakening, like many textual discussions of that path, is organized around the qualities known as the Six Perfections (Skt. pāramitā). The Six Perfections are: Generosity (dāna) Moral discipline (śīla) Patient endurance (kṣānti) Perseverance (vīrya) Meditative stability (dhyāna) Wisdom (prajñā) Kṣānti, the third perfection, is a complex concept, difficult to render with a single English word. It has three main aspects. One is the ability to endure and maintain one’s calm and clarity of intention in the face of obstacles such as frustrations, delays, and unpleasant sensations. “Patience” would be a plausible translation for this aspect of kṣānti. The second, and most important, aspect of the perfection is the ability to remain peaceful, not becoming angry, when other people harm us or cause difficulties for us. This second and primary aspect could justify a translation as “forbearance”. When insulted, someone with strong moral discipline would not retaliate, but might become angry and restrain the expression of the anger; someone with strong patient endurance would not become angry in the first place. The term kṣānti is also often used to refer to the ability to remain calm and not react with fear or anger when hearing presentations of the ultimate truth, the way things really are. Perseverance, the fourth perfection, is the ability to pour energy enthusiastically into constructive activities that benefit oneself and others. Meditative stability, the fifth perfection, is the ability to maintain clear, stable attention during meditation practice. Though thoughts may arise during meditation, they do not cause distraction in someone with strong meditative stability, but merely appear as movements of mind. Prajñā, which could be translated as “wisdom” or as “discernment,” is difficult to define and varies subtly in meaning among different Buddhist lineages. This quality allows those who have it to make distinctions between phenomena and to understand things as they actually are. It is often described as intuitively based and can only partially be put into words. The term pāramitā, which I have been translating as “perfection,” could also be rendered as “transcendence.” In order to awaken fully, a bodhisattva must train in these qualities so deeply as to transcend how they are ordinarily understood. This is done by achieving what is known as “the threefold purity,” meaning that the bodhisattva does not regard either herself, the action being performed, or the object of that action as being a real, objectively existing thing. So, for example, someone who thinks that he has a substantial self and is giving real food to an objectively existing recipient would be showing worldly generosity. But someone who can give while regarding herself, the gift, and the recipient as like mirages, existing only from a certain point of view and not in objective reality, can practice the transmundane perfection of generosity. (On this see, e.g., Huntington trans. 1989, 150.) Buddhist texts don’t often take up the question of the general theoretical principles that differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong; they more often tend to lay down a variety of particular moral rules, guidelines, virtues, and vices, and leave the matter there. But when the texts do address what differentiates right from wrong in general, they tend to focus on the consequences of our decisions and actions. Take, for instance, this passage from the Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā: When you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results,’ then you definitely should not do such an action with the body. But when you reflect, if you know: ‘This action that I wish to do with the body would not lead to my own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both; it is a wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results,’ then you may do such an action with the body. (Ñānamoli and Bodhi trans. 1995, 524–25) This passage identifies the criterion of permissible action in terms of consequences, and in particular, consequences that consist of happiness and suffering. Passages such as this one suggest the possibility of regarding Theravāda ethics as having a consequentialist foundation. Most Buddhist authors don’t say enough about the overall structure of their normative commitments to make it possible to attribute any particular ethical theory to them. One exception would be Śāntideva (late 7th-mid 8th century CE), whose writings contain a number of passages of great interest from the perspective of ethical theory. Perhaps the most revealing of these can be found in the Training Anthology (Śikṣā-samuccaya) at standard page 15 (see Goodman 2016a, 17). The passage reads: If a bodhisattva does not make a sincere, unwavering effort in thought, word, and deed to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness, or does not seek the collection of conditions for that, or does not strive to prevent what is opposed to that, or does not bring about small pain and suffering as a way of preventing great pain and suffering, or does not abandon a small benefit in order to accomplish a greater benefit, if he neglects to do these things even for a moment, he undergoes a downfall. Here Śāntideva focuses our attention on the future consequences that our actions can causally “stop” or “bring about”; at least in this passage, he seems to be advocating consequentialism. In particular, what Śāntideva is concerned with here is the experienced quality of certain feelings; he is trying to stop “pain and suffering” and bring about “pleasure and happiness.” Philosophers use the term “hedonism” to refer to the view that takes the presence of happiness and the absence of suffering to constitute well-being. Moreover, the view Śāntideva advocates is universalist, because it extends moral concern to all sentient beings. It’s fairly clear, moreover, that Śāntideva is an advocate of maximization: he regards it as mandatory to bring about a small amount of suffering to prevent a greater amount, and to sacrifice a small amount of happiness to achieve a larger amount. And since he does not say anything about constraints or important considerations arising from the distribution of happiness and suffering, the most plausible reading of this passage would involve accepting aggregation, in which the happiness and suffering of all beings are considered together, without attaching significance to how these are distributed. Now the ethical view called “classical utilitarianism” can be defined as aggregative, maximizing, universalist, hedonist consequentialism. This passage, then, can most naturally be interpreted as a statement of the classical utilitarian form of consequentialism. Though this passage gives us strong reasons to accept that Śāntideva is committed to assigning impartial benevolence a central role in how we should live and behave toward others, a number of scholars have questioned whether we have enough evidence to interpret him as a utilitarian (e.g., Harris 2015). And as Michael Barnhart and others have argued, even if Śāntideva himself actually was a utilitarian, it does not follow that such a view can be attributed to the Buddhist tradition as a whole (Barnhart 2012, 19). According to many of the world’s intellectual traditions, each person is a real, individual substance with a true essence or self. According to Buddhism, this widely held view is false; you are not a substance. Instead, all there is to a person is a complex, rapidly changing stream of mental and physical phenomena, connected by causal links and inextricably interrelated with the rest of the universe. This view is known as the doctrine of no self (Pāli anattā; Skt. anātman.) Śāntideva draws on this teaching to argue that egoism is irrational, and that we should work for the benefit of all sentient beings. As he writes, “Without exception, no sufferings belong to anyone. They are to be warded off simply because they are suffering. Why is any limitation put on this?” (Crosby and Skilton trans. 1995, 97) If you are not a real thing, there is no reason to place any greater intrinsic importance on preventing your own future suffering than on preventing the future suffering of others. As writers such as Mark Siderits (2003, ch. 9) have often noted, this strategy for justifying altruism, which many scholars now call the Ownerless Suffering Argument, closely resembles the arguments for consequentialism in Parfit 1984 (ch. 15). In fact, it’s hard to see how the Ownerless Suffering Argument could support any moral view that is not some form of universalist consequentialism. From the perspective of this argument, your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted. Moreover, you may have more effective means available to advance your own happiness than you do to advance the happiness of others. And you often know much more about yourself than you do about others. So there is scope within this view to justify prudential concern for your own future; in the early and middle stages of the path, you may end up in practice spending more time taking care of your own future needs than those of others. This kind of prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self, and is not the same as egoism. Here egoism would mean attaching more intrinsic significance to your own welfare than to that of others, or even disregarding others’ welfare and merely making an effort to promote your own. Buddhists would see egoism as reflecting a damaging lack of perception of the absence of self. Any interpretation of Buddhist ethics must find room for the absolutely crucial role of intention. There are many contexts in which Buddhism seems to emphasize the intention with which an act was performed much more than the benefit or harm that actually resulted. One case often cited is that of Channa, who presented a gift of food to the Buddha which gave him dysentery and thus caused his death. Since Channa’s intention was to perform a meritorious act of generosity, the Buddha tells his followers not to condemn Channa; since he did not know that the food was contaminated, he actually gained goodness from this action. Less dramatically, the amount of good or bad karma generated by an action is said to be strongly dependent on the motivation with which it was carried out. Thus actions performed out of hatred are more karmically damaging than those performed out of greed. Meanwhile, some Buddhist texts seem to say that any action performed with good intentions is a good action, whereas any action performed with bad intentions is a bad one. These suggestions may support a theoretical reconstruction that focuses more on motivation than on consequences. As we will see in Section 6, most forms of Buddhism also take a strongly negative attitude to killing. Sometimes, this opposition is taken to an extent which may be difficult to justify from a consequentialist perspective. Many consequentialist theories, such as classical utilitarianism, notoriously make it much easier to justify killing than it would be on other moral perspectives. The most straightforward application of utilitarianism would imply that it is sometimes morally permissible to kill someone when doing so would bring about benefits or prevent harms sufficient to outweigh the value of the future existence that would otherwise be enjoyed by the person to be killed. Many Buddhists, especially in the Theravāda, would recoil from this implication and place a much higher standard on the justification of killing, if it can be justified at all. This issue poses a significant problem that a consequentialist interpretation needs to solve. Another way of understanding Buddhist ethics is to read it as similar, not to consequentialism, but to virtue ethics. This account was first proposed by Damien Keown (in Keown 1992) and has since been followed by several scholars. The virtue ethics approach begins from the undoubted fact that Buddhist texts devote a great deal of attention to what kind of people we should strive to be and what virtues we should seek to cultivate in ourselves. In this respect, Buddhist ethics may seem more similar to the views of ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle than to more modern Western thought. For Aristotle, the goal we should aim at in life is eudaimonia, often translated “happiness” or “human flourishing.” This condition of eudaimonia is the good for humans. Keown argues that the role of Nirvana in Theravāda ethics is analogous: Nirvana is the good. The various abilities and virtues that are cultivated on the Buddhist path would then derive their value from their relation to this good, either as means to attaining Nirvana or as constituent aspects of the awakened life. One way to settle the issue between consequentialist and virtue ethics interpretations of Buddhist teachings would be to identify the most fundamental aim of the Buddhist worldview. Is it the perfection of the individual’s character, as in virtue ethics, or the welfare of all sentient beings, as in universalist, welfarist consequentialism? Now on a traditional Buddhist view, the Law of Karma says that those of our actions that are intended to harm others will evolve into misery for us, whereas those of our actions that are intended to benefit others will evolve into happiness for us. Moreover, the highest states of well-being we can attain are also characterized by lovingkindness and compassion for others. In all or nearly all cases, then, the action that is best for the agent and the action that is best for all beings will coincide, on this view. There is no deep conflict between self-interest and morality. This is wonderful, if true, but it makes our theoretical task much harder. Should we say that the most fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to benefit all sentient beings everywhere and advance their welfare, and that it so happens that the most effective way for each agent to do this is to work toward her own awakening? Or should we say that the most fundamental aim of practice is the practitioner’s own awakening, and that it so happens that pursuing this aim will turn out to benefit others as well? Mahāyāna texts are full of passages that focus on the importance of the welfare of all beings and extol those who promote this goal. Therefore, the virtue ethics interpretation appears more plausible when applied to the Theravāda than when applied to the Mahāyāna. And in fact, Keown proposed his account primarily in relation to the Theravāda; he offers a rather different interpretation of the Mahāyāna, which in fact involves a certain kind of consequentialism. We should not necessarily assume that all forms of Buddhism have the same structure at the level of ethical theory. It is possible to construct an interpretation that acknowledges the central importance of virtue and the cultivation of character in Buddhism within an overall framework that is consequentialist. One approach is character consequentialism, in which the good consequences that are to be maximized are defined by the welfare of sentient beings, and the welfare of sentient beings is understood to consist in both happiness and virtue. On this view, we have a non-instrumental reason to promote the virtue of ourselves and others. (This theory is defended at length in Goodman 2009.) Character consequentialism thus rejects hedonism, the view that identifies welfare with happiness, and advances a theory in which the good has two major components. This approach allows us to avoid some of the damaging philosophical objections that have been raised against hedonism. But it also creates questions about how to compare the value of greater virtue against the value of greater happiness, should these considerations ever conflict. Another approach is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate. How plausible is it to interpret Buddhist authors as committed to a hedonist view of well-being––or indeed, to any view of well-being at all? South Asian Buddhist texts often use terms such as artha and hita that plausibly express the same concept as our term “well-being,” so it is reasonable to ask what account the authors of those texts might have given of what they meant. Given the central importance of the prevention of suffering in Buddhism, as expressed in such teachings as the First Noble Truth, it must be true that well-being in Buddhism includes freedom from suffering as, at least, one of its components. Meanwhile, given the strongly negative Buddhist view of desire, it would not be plausible at all to regard Buddhism as holding a desire-fulfillment theory of well-being. However, hedonism is not our only interpretive option. Śāntideva claims in several passages that the Buddhist virtues work together and reinforce each other. This makes it possible to read him as holding a “homeostatic cluster” view of well-being like that of Richard Boyd (see Goodman 2016b, 149-152.) Those who defend the analogy between Buddhist ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics could advance a nature-fulfillment theory as the proper interpretation of well-being in Buddhism. Mark Siderits (2007) rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with the doctrine of no self, which implies that, ultimately, humans have no nature to fulfill. But Christopher Gowans has pointed out that, if we regard well-being as existing at the conventional level of truth, this objection may lose its force (see Gowans 2015, 117). Some scholars, such as Charles Hallisey (1996) and Jay Garfield, have concluded that it is futile and misleading to try to interpret Buddhist ethics as a systematic theory fitting into one of the recognized types of ethical theories in the West. Rather, they suggest that Buddhist ethics is pluralist, in that it draws on various kinds of moral considerations in different cases, and particularist, rejecting the entire enterprise of formulating general moral principles to cover all cases. This view can easily accommodate textual evidence of various kinds of moral reasoning used by Buddhists in different situations. But since the resulting interpretation lacks an overarching structure, it has few theoretical resources to adjudicate conflicts between different values, and it may become quite unclear what the view says about particular difficult cases. Buddhist texts say relatively little about metaethics, and attempts to construct metaethical views that would be consistent with Buddhist philosophical commitments have encountered many difficulties. One fascinating recent attempt to provide a metaethics for early Buddhism, in the work of Jake Davis (2016 and Forthcoming,) takes statements about what the wise would approve or criticize as indicating the source of ethical normativity. This kind of formulation is frequently encountered in canonical texts, as for instance in the Metta Sutta: “Let them not do the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Buddhists accept that a mind that is calm, clear and stable sees the truth more accurately than disturbed, fluctuating ordinary consciousness. For Davis, the ethical truth just consists of those normative statements that would be accepted unanimously by those whose inner life exhibits, to a sufficient degree, these qualities of mental clarity and insight. Thus, on his view, even if the wise would often approve of taking actions that would have valuable consequences, it is not those consequences but the approval of the wise that makes those actions morally right. The theoretical structure of Buddhist ethics is a subject of continuing research and debate among a number of scholars, and further developments are likely in our understanding of this field. Buddhist texts contain a large number of enigmatic statements, of various different types, seemingly to the effect that once a practitioner reaches a sufficiently advanced stage of spiritual development, moral discipline is no longer necessary. These statements have been interpreted in dramatically different ways by various Asian traditions, and Western scholars disagree about how we should understand them. The Pāli Canon contains the claim that Saints have “abandoned goodness (puñña) and vile actions (pāpa).” Some writers have interpreted this statement as meaning that ethical norms no longer apply to Saints. But Damien Keown has argued quite convincingly against this interpretation (1992, ch. 4). “Goodness” and “vile actions” refer to actions which have karmic effects in the future, projecting a future existence that includes happiness or suffering, respectively. Since the life in which one becomes a Saint is one’s last life, it is impossible that any actions that occur after Sainthood is attained could project future existence through karma. The change which stops the accumulation of karma is most plausibly identified as the abandonment of clinging to the belief in a substantial self. Someone who no longer thinks of actions as stemming from and having effects on a real, persisting self is no longer trapped in cyclic existence. Theravāda texts contain intriguing suggestions that Saints no longer have to worry about following rules of moral discipline; they just spontaneously act in appropriate ways. But there are also statements in Theravāda texts to the effect that a Saint would never knowingly and intentionally break any of the rules of monastic discipline. These rules forbid many actions which the Buddhist tradition regards as reprehensible merely by convention, such as eating after noon. If someone has not taken a vow that prohibits eating after noon, then doing so is not wrong: the wrongness of the action stems merely from the fact that it infringes a valuable system of discipline that the agent has chosen to undertake. If Saints just act spontaneously and aren’t psychologically bound by rules, it’s not clear why they would, in all circumstances, avoid actions which are wrong merely because they are forbidden by rules of monastic discipline. There seems to be a serious tension here. Writers expounding Mahāyāna ethics face somewhat similar issues, but handle them rather differently. According to Mahāyāna philosophers such as Asaṅga and Śāntideva, an advanced practitioner who is motivated by compassion may sometimes see that an action which is forbidden by the usual rules of Buddhist moral discipline would actually be more effective at preventing suffering and promoting happiness than any action the rules would permit. Under such circumstances, that practitioner can permissibly break the rules out of compassion. For example, Asaṅga tells us that it would be permissible to tell a lie to save another sentient being from being killed or seriously harmed. If someone takes up with bad friends, it would be permissible to criticize those friends to him, a case of divisive speech, in order to protect him from being corrupted by them. It would be permissible to overthrow a wicked king or remove a corrupt temple administrator from office. If a thief steals items belonging to the monastic community, it would be permissible to steal them back in order to protect him from the severe bad karma of consuming those items. In fact, if a bandit is planning to murder a large number of spiritually advanced beings, it would be permissible to kill the bandit preemptively, thus saving him from the terrible torment of aeons in the hells. In all such cases, according to Asaṅga, these acts, if done with the right kind of motivation, would result in much merit for the one who carries them out. (Tatz trans. 1986, 70–73) One thing that many of these cases seem to have in common is that the rule-violating action proceeds from a compassion that includes in its scope not only the potential victims of the harms that are to be prevented, but also the perpetrator of those harms. When people hear of the Buddhist commitment to nonviolence, one question they often ask is whether someone with foreknowledge of the events of the 1940s would be permitted by Buddhist principles to assassinate Hitler in 1930. If we follow Asaṅga, the answer would seem to be: yes, you may kill Hitler, if you have compassion for him and you do it partly for his sake. Thus, in extreme cases, violence may be permissible; but hatred is never justified. One way to understand Asaṅga’s view here would be to imagine that one of your loved ones, such as your brother or son, is slipped a drug which makes him temporarily insane, and he then attacks you with a knife. To remain passive and let him kill you would not be the best thing you could do for him. If you are able to knock him down, take the knife away and restrain him, you thereby protect him from a lifetime of regret and distress resulting from having killed you. This use of coercive force would therefore naturally flow from your love for him. In addition to particular examples of permissible violations of the rules of moral discipline, both Asaṅga and Śāntideva give us general statements about when the rules should be broken. These statements are strikingly consequentialist in flavor. Thus Asaṅga tells us this: “If the bodhisattva sees that some caustic means, some use of severity would be of benefit to sentient beings, and does not employ it in order to guard against unhappiness, he is possessed of fault, possessed of contradiction; there is fault that is not defiled” (Tatz trans., 1986, 76). Śāntideva’s view is similar; he writes: “Realizing this, one should always be striving for others’ well-being. Even what is proscribed is permitted for a compassionate person who sees it will be of benefit.” (Crosby and Skilton trans., 1995, 41). According to these statements, an agent who is truly motivated by compassion can break the usually applicable rules of moral discipline whenever doing so would benefit those involved in the situation. Several Mahāyāna texts, then, allow for certain cases in which advanced practitioners may violate the rules of moral discipline. Texts from the Vajrayāna, or Tantric, traditions of Buddhism go further than this. Revered Tantric masters such as Nāropa, Kukkurīpa, and Padmasambhava are shown engaging in shocking actions that flagrantly violate the conventions of society and the rules of Buddhist moral discipline. But these stories do not necessarily mean that the Vajrayāna rejects all forms of ethics. Numerous texts make it clear that even as they break the rules, Tantric adepts are motivated by compassion for all sentient beings. They see that given the situation, unconventional and even grotesque actions are the most effective means to bring about the welfare of others. Since they are totally free of all bonds of ideology or social conditioning, they spontaneously do what will be best on the whole, without worrying about what others might think or what the rulebook might say. They have transcended moral discipline completely, while remaining, in a deeper sense, ethical exemplars. Like several other Asian traditions, Buddhism does not regard humans as fundamentally different from other animals. Through the process of rebirth, what is in some sense the same entity can be a human now, but an animal in the past and in the future. One consequence of this claim is that any animal you meet is likely to have been a human at one time, and may even have been your own mother in a previous life. Moreover, animals are seen as just as capable of suffering as humans are; they are also appropriate objects of the emotions of compassion, lovingkindness and equanimity. Thus we have powerful reasons not to cause them unnecessary suffering and to refrain from harming or killing them. Though animals are sentient beings and possess consciousness, just as humans do, there is one reason why human lives are more precious than animal lives. Only in a human body can one attain awakening; in an animal body, this is not possible. Therefore, Buddhists maintain that it is worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Though all Buddhist traditions attach moral significance to animal life and animal suffering, not all Buddhists practice vegetarianism. For example, Theravāda monks, who live by begging, are expected to eat whatever food is placed in their bowl, including meat, without preference or discrimination. However, they are forbidden to eat meat from an animal if they have seen, heard, or suspected that the animal in question was killed specifically for them. The Tibetan plateau is at a high altitude and has a very cold, dry climate. Over much of Tibet, the only form of food production possible is nomadic pastoralism, with sheep and yaks as the major sources of food. Moreover, under premodern conditions, and given the cold weather, people living in Tibet needed to eat calorie-dense food in order to survive. A strict vegetarianism was therefore quite impractical. As a result, many Tibetans came to accept meat eating as a necessary part of their lifestyle. Today, however, with more vegetarian food options available and with many Tibetans living in exile, important spiritual leaders in the Tibetan tradition have begun to advocate a switch to a vegetarian diet. Some sources in the Buddhist tradition hold that it is worse to kill an animal yourself than to eat the meat of an animal someone else has killed. Many faithful Buddhists go to great lengths not to kill animals. Moreover, the professions of hunting and fishing are classified as “wrong livelihood,” and Buddhists are expected not to follow them. In majority Buddhist countries, butchers are often members of non-Buddhist religious minorities. Before the time of the historical Buddha, animal sacrifice was an important part of Indian religious practice. The Buddha expressed his unqualified opposition to animal sacrifice, holding that far from creating religious merit, it would only produce bad karma for those engaged in it. As a result of his teachings, along with those of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, ideals of nonviolence became more prevalent in India, and animal sacrifice declined rapidly in frequency and prestige. Among a few marginal Buddhist or quasi-Buddhist groups in the Himalayas, animal sacrifice is still practiced today; but Buddhist monastic institutions have fairly consistently opposed the killing of animals for religious purposes. Most Buddhist texts hold that plants are not sentient beings and do not have moral status in and of themselves. Although a few scattered sources suggest that plants might be sentient, the mainstream of the tradition sees it as morally unproblematic in itself to use, kill, or eat plants. However, since animals depend on plants, there are sometimes instrumental reasons to protect plants for the sake of animal welfare. We do find guidance, for example, to be careful in cutting down trees to refrain from harming the animals who live in and around them. In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā, which might be more literally rendered as “having made an analogy with oneself.” Here a form of moral reasoning is used that is quite similar to the Golden Rule: imaginatively put yourself in the place of others, and you will see that certain ways of treating them are morally impermissible. The Dhammapada also tells us: Whoever withholds the rod from creatures Both weak and strong, Abstaining from killing and causing killing Him do I call a Noble One. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107) Buddhists explicitly reject the Hindu teaching that a soldier in a just war will be reborn in a heavenly realm. Instead, Buddhists hold that those who die in battle are likely to be reborn as animals or in the hells, especially if they die with a feeling of anger or hatred toward the soldiers on the other side. In his commentary on the Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuḥśataka) of Āryadeva, Candrakīrti expresses a very low opinion of those who give their lives in battle for their king and country: “In this world people who give up all of their possessions for gambling, liquor, and prostitutes are not entitled to respect. Virtuous-minded people do not honor the sacrifice of these people, since they pursue an addiction. In the same way, the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions” (Lang trans., 2003, 200). He also criticizes the view that kings may permissibly engage in warfare, and offers what looks like a general statement of pacifism: “a sage is inferior when his treatises explain violence as virtuous behavior. A mediocre sage has doubts: ‘it may be so or it may not be so.’ A superior sage does not regard violence as virtuous behavior” (Lang trans., 2003, 197). Buddhist monks, especially in the Theravāda tradition, are expected to practice a strict form of non-violence; they should prefer being killed to killing others, and should even practice lovingkindness and compassion toward those who harm them or their families. The Buddha himself is said to have mediated a dispute over water rights between two neighboring kingdoms, preventing it from escalating into an armed conflict. In troubled times, Buddhist monks have often sought opportunities to bring about peace and the resolution of conflict through dialogue. Normative Buddhist texts praise the role of peacemaker and an attitude of impartial benevolence toward all parties to a conflict (see, e.g., Thurman trans. 2000, 70). The Buddhist attitude toward war is thus quite negative, and passages glorifying military victory or sanitizing the realities of warfare are hard to find in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, the common perception of Buddhism as a whole as an unequivocally pacifist tradition is questionable. Many forms of Buddhism have arrived at the position that in rare cases, war may be necessary. One way that Buddhist ethical theory might be used, in certain extreme cases, to justify war relies on Asaṅga’s account of justifiable killing, discussed in section 4 above. For example, if the officials of a militarily powerful state, monitoring the situation in a small developing country, see that a genocide has begun to take place there, they might reflect that those who are now committing genocide are not only causing terrible harm to their victims, but also accumulating severe negative karma for themselves. These officials might decide to intervene to stop the genocide, motivated by compassion for everyone involved, including the killers. If they are sincerely motivated in this way, Mahāyāna Buddhists might see their actions as acceptable, even if they involved using military force and killing many people, because less suffering would result and the overall consequences would therefore be much better. As Stephen Jenkins has shown in an important recent article, a number of influential Mahāyāna texts provide arguments of this general type. Both Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna offer the example “of a physician, certainly one of the most important and pervasive metaphors for a bodhisattva, amputating a finger that has been bitten by a poisonous snake, thus preventing the spread of greater suffering” (Jenkins 2011, 12). Candrakīrti then develops this theme through another example, of a hunter who kills one of his sons to prevent both from dying. The two sons are arguing at the edge of a precipice and one of them grabs the other with the intention of hurling them both over. Since he cannot reach them, and so has no other option, the hunter shoots one son with an arrow to prevent them both from dying. This case shows a concern for reducing the proportional extent of harm, as in the example of amputation (Jenkins 2011, 15–16). How could the permissibility of shooting one son to save both be reconciled with the seemingly pacifist statements offered elsewhere by Candrakīrti? Jenkins suggests (at 2011, 13) that we can see the passages as consistent if we realize that the Sanskrit word himsā, though translated by Lang and many other writers as “violence,” does not exactly correspond to our concept of violence, and is somewhat closer in meaning to “harm.” In killing one son to save both, it can be argued that the hunter does not harm anyone, since the son who was shot with an arrow would have died anyway. Similarly, killing thugs intent on genocide would clearly be an example of violence, but we would not necessarily describe it as a harmful act, and it may not count as himsā. Several Mahāyāna scriptures also contain statements inconsistent with an unqualified pacifism. For instance, the Mahā-parinirvāṇa Sūtra states that it is permissible for someone with a pure intention to kill those who persecute Buddhism (Jenkins 2011, 18). Another scriptural text, the Range of the Bodhisattva (ārya-bodhisattva-gocara), explicitly endorses defensive warfare, when carried out with strict limitations and in order to protect the people: Although in war, injury and death may be inflicted on the opposing army, a ruler by his skillful means will commit less unspeakable and less nonvirtuous action and may not necessarily experience retribution, since he undertook such measures with heedfulness and compassion. (Jamspal trans. 2010, 61) In practice, Buddhist societies have not always refrained from war. For example, between 1635 and 1642, the Mongol leader Gushri Khan invaded Tibet, suppressed various warring factions, and placed supreme political power over the region in the hands of the dGe lugs tradition and its leader, His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama. In the Song of the Queen of Spring, a text published in 1643, the Fifth Dalai Lama describes Gushri Khan as an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapāni, and justifies his warlike actions as motivated by compassion (Maher 2008, 186–90). In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks and rulers have endorsed the use of military force to defend their island, seen as a sacred land and a sanctuary for the Buddhist religion, against Hindu invaders from South India. During the recent civil war, similar justifications were used to defend the use of military measures against separatist rebels, mostly Hindus belonging to the Tamil minority. In general, Buddhist kings in many parts of the world, including Southeast and Central Asia, have called on their military forces to resist foreign invasions. Buddhist discussions of the ethics of punishment are fairly rare, but there is an important passage about punishment in the Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī), a letter to a king from the great Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. Whether or not Buddhist ethics in general is consequentialist, the theory of punishment Nāgārjuna presents is clearly a consequentialist one. To maintain social order, punishment is a regrettable necessity. But the king should not punish out of anger or a desire for revenge. Instead, he should inflict punishment out of compassion, especially compassion for the criminals themselves, whose destructive actions may have condemned them to many lifetimes of suffering. (See Hopkins 1998 for a translation of the text and Goodman 2009, ch. 9, for discussion.) Moreover, punishment should be as mild as is consistent with achieving the goal of restraining crime. Prisoners should be treated well and held under humane conditions. Moreover, those prisoners who are physically weak, and therefore pose less danger to society, should be released early. It’s fairly clear that Nāgārjuna would reject retributivist theories of punishment, which hold that prisoners should be punished because they deserve to suffer or in order to take away any unjust advantage they may have gained by their actions. From the point of view of retributivism, the physical strength or weakness of prisoners is irrelevant to how much punishment they deserve. Moreover, some forms of retributivism, especially cruder, popular versions, would endorse harsh conditions of punishment in order to ensure that prisoners have to undergo the degree of suffering that they deserve. Just as Asaṅga’s theory can be used to justify certain kinds of military action, it could also help justify punishment. Punishment can have a number of beneficial effects: it can incapacitate criminals, physically preventing them from repeating their crimes; it can deter criminals, inducing them to follow the law from fear of further punishment; it can rehabilitate criminals by giving them education and skills that provide them with better options than a life of crime; sometimes, it can even reform criminals, helping them change their character to become better people, so that they will no longer wish to commit crimes. These good effects of punishment benefit society, since they reduce the crime rate; but from a Buddhist point of view, they also benefit criminals themselves by preventing them from creating more bad karma. Thus punishment can be motivated by compassion for both criminals and their victims, and so it could be acceptable in Buddhist ethics. Some people see Buddhism as maintaining unqualified pacifism and rejecting violence completely in general. In fact, some Buddhist scriptures and treatises do allow for extreme cases in which compassionately motivated punishment, violence, and even war could be justified. They reserve their unqualified opposition for the reactive emotions that often lead to violence, such as anger, hatred, malice, and the desire for revenge. Buddhists should cultivate lovingkindness and compassion for everyone, even those guilty of the worst actions, and even while recognizing that some people need to be forcibly restrained from doing even more damage. In a world that has been so terribly scarred by violence and cruelty, the Buddhist rejection of most forms of warfare seems wise and appropriate. But in a complicated world of difficult choices, allowing for the necessity of violence in rare instances may be difficult to avoid. There is considerable controversy about the moral status of abortion in Buddhist ethics, with the majority of writers taking a pro-life position. The basic premise of the traditional understanding of abortion in Buddhism is that reincarnation is a discrete event which happens at the time of conception. This claim can be found in discussions of reincarnation in prestigious sources such as the Treasury of Metaphysics (Abhidharma-kośa) of Vasubandhu. It implies that an embryo, even during the first week of pregnancy, is a human being. As discussed in section 5, what is distinctively valuable about human life is the possibility of awakening. When the life of a fetus is taken through abortion, this possibility is foreclosed. It follows that abortion is seriously wrong, almost as serious as the deliberate murder of an adult. This is the view of most Buddhists on the mainland of Asia today. It’s important to keep in mind that the technological and social context of abortion has changed dramatically since the time when the Pāli Canon was composed. Today, a woman might be informed by her doctor that the fetus she is carrying suffers from a severe genetic abnormality; if she gives birth, her baby will live for a few days or a few months in great pain before its inevitable early death. At the time of the Buddha, medical technology was obviously far too undeveloped to make such a situation possible. In the Pāli Canon, many of the cases that involve abortion relate to a woman in a polygamous marriage who is jealous of her co-wife’s pregnancy and wishes to cause her rival to miscarry. Buddhist teachers who formulated a blanket prohibition on abortion with this latter type of case in mind might reconsider if they were aware of the former type of case. Unlike some other world religions, Buddhism does not have any moral objection to contraception. Thus Buddhists could easily agree to support programs to reduce the need for abortion by making contraception more widely available and educating people in its use. Some Buddhists might question the premise that a human being exists from the time of conception onward. Some Buddhists in the contemporary West do not read the traditional teachings about reincarnation literally, and so would not have reason to accept that reincarnation happens at the moment of conception. Moreover, there are scientific reasons to believe that consciousness does not begin until at least the twentieth week of pregnancy (McMahan 2002, 267). There can be no reincarnation without consciousness. If we want both to believe in reincarnation and to accept what science tells us about the physical bases of consciousness, we should perhaps hold that reincarnation is a gradual process that slowly brings about a new conscious being that is connected with one who has recently died. This concept of a gradual beginning of life may be counterintuitive in some respects, but it harmonizes well with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of no self. If we accept this understanding, then early abortion would not constitute killing a sentient being. Despite these counterarguments, most Buddhists today would accept that, in their ethical system, abortion is morally wrong. It does not necessarily follow that they would advocate making abortion illegal. In many ways, it is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to impose Buddhist values on others by force. Buddhists were early advocates of religious toleration, and the political environment of India before the Islamic invasions was mostly quite a tolerant one in practice. Moreover, Buddhist states have usually not chosen to prohibit such practices as slaughtering and eating animals, even when their rulers have held that these practices are immoral. Some writers have argued that due to the severity of the offense of killing a human, abortion in particular should not be legally tolerated by Buddhist societies (for example, see Harvey 2000, 342–350). In fact, in some Buddhist countries, such as Japan, abortion is legal; in others, it is technically illegal, but the law is not strictly enforced. In a diverse society where the moral status of fetuses is controversial, a strict prohibition on abortion is likely to be difficult and costly to enforce, and doing so would lead to intense social controversy, alienating people from their own government. The inevitable use of coercion and violence in law enforcement, in the form of police and prisons, itself represents a grave karmic cost of imposing any penal law on segments of the population who do not accept it as legitimate. Thus many of the reasons internal to the Buddhist tradition that could be used to argue in favor of religious toleration would also seem to support a legal regime that permits abortion, even if Buddhist ethical views imply that abortion is wrong. The Buddhist tradition is less strongly opposed to suicide than some other world religions. For a young, healthy person to complete suicide is seen unequivocally as a destructive action. Yet the texts have a perspective of greater ambivalence and complexity toward the suicide of the gravely ill. Nevertheless, since the overall outlook of their religion encourages Buddhists to value life and oppose killing, they tend to be quite concerned about the moral status of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Traditional Buddhist beliefs imply that to die mindfully, with full awareness of the processes of death, is a powerful spiritual practice. The vivid, direct experience of impermanence and the strong sense of non-attachment that result from dying this way could contribute profoundly to the spiritual progress of that person in future lives. This consideration motivates some Buddhists to allow death to take its natural course, neither hastening it through suicide nor putting it off briefly through desperate measures of little benefit. Those who lack the needed depth of spiritual training may not be able to die mindfully, and therefore may be better candidates for aggressive medical intervention to prolong life. Even for them, though, the chaos, excitement, confusion and fear of dying in the midst of aggressive medical intervention may increase the risk of an unfavorable rebirth. If the intervention promises no more than a chance of a few more hours or days of life, with no hope of a genuine recovery, those who believe in future lives may see it as a poor option. The very strong emphasis on the relief of suffering we find in Buddhist ethics might lead us to conclude that Buddhists should favor assisted suicide or euthanasia when a patient is in severe pain, wants to die, but is unable to complete suicide due to physical limitations. A doctor who carries out such procedures, though, even with the consent of the patients involved, is in a karmically perilous position. If the doctor’s motives for killing terminal patients are in any way impure, the karmic consequences could be very serious. The same applies to family members who cause the death of their relative while motivated, even in part, by greed or by dislike of that person. For more information on these issues, see the detailed and helpful discussion by Peter Harvey (Harvey 2000, 286–310). The questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide involve several important Buddhist values which may be in tension with each other. In looking at these matters from a Buddhist perspective, we are unlikely to find any easy answers. Davis, Jake H., 2016, “‘The Scope for Wisdom’: Early Buddhism on Reasons and Persons”, in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, ed. Shyam Ranganathan, Bloomsbury Academic. –––, Forthcoming, “When You Know For Yourselves: Mindfulness and the Development of Wisdom,” in A Mirror is For Reflection: Understanding Buddhist Ethics, ed. Jake H. Davis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	In Southeast Asia, some Buddhist monks have been very active in protecting forests from logging. Buddhism does not see a great gulf between humans and non-human animals, as some adherents of Western religions do; the suffering of animals is morally significant, just like the suffering of humans. Moreover, Buddhist theories of causality stress that things arise in dependence on a diverse collection of causes and conditions, implying that human life is interdependent in complex ways with other forms of life on Earth. And as mentioned above, the cultivation of lovingkindness and compassion for all sentient beings is an important part of most systems of Buddhist meditation practice. As a result of these teachings, many contemporary Buddhists, especially in the West, place great value on ecological awareness and environmental sustainability. They seek to develop a way of life for humanity that supports spiritual practice and can coexist in harmony with the non-human animals who share our planet. The Buddhist tradition generally sees war and violence as deeply morally problematic. War is seen as tragic and typically unnecessary, and the position of a soldier is seen as highly karmically dangerous. Violence directly causes harm and suffering to sentient beings, pollutes the minds of those who use it, and creates cycles of hatred and retribution that can inflict terrible damage, both physical and psychological. In general, the Buddhist attitude toward violence is expressed in verses X. 1–2 of the Dhammapada: Everybody fears being struck by a rod. Everybody fears death. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. Everybody fears being struck by a rod, Life being dear to all. Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself, Do not kill others or cause others to kill. (Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37) The phrase translated “feeling for others as for yourself” is the Pāli attānaṃupamaṃkatvā,	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775613	Is Nonviolence and Pacifism in Christian and ... - Project MUSE	It is well documented and widely recognized that both Buddhism and Christianity have common themes of nonviolence, pacifism, and peace found throughout their teachings. In the beginning, the adherents of these two faiths consistently held to a strong form of pacifism and nonviolence. Yet as time progressed and the religions continued in their development, nonviolence and pacifism ceased to be normative practices for Christians and Buddhists. Although in our modern context the core teachings have remained consistent, on a practical level, many adherents of both religions do not hold to pacifism and the concepts of nonviolence. This article intends to examine the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism in Buddhism and Christianity, through viewing their respective theological, philosophical, and historical traditions, and then decipher how central and necessary these concepts are to the authentic practice of their faiths. In other words, the paper intends to answer the question, "Are the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism and Christianity?" After coming to a conclusion about the nature of the ethics of nonviolence and pacifism in both faith traditions, it intends to then ascertain what the implications are for the religions and their followers and to express how the concept of pacifism and nonviolence should create common ground in religious dialogue between the two faiths. The hope is that this dialogue and commonality could promote beneficial societal change. introduction When one examines the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity, one can clearly see that the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are core values and principles, which are celebrated traditions in both religions. Both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha incorporate and promote teachings of peace, nonviolence, nonresistance and doing no harm. Even outside of the direct teachings from these leaders, one [End Page 387] can see that other religious texts and doctrines within Buddhism and Christianity also point toward resisting violence, opposing retaliation, and the avoidance of war. These are common bonds that both religions share. Yet, as we look at these religions on a global scale, it can be seen that the vast majority of the adherents to these faiths do not follow these practices and principles. Virtually all of the countries in which the majority religion is Christianity or Buddhism still have armies, use the death penalty, manufacture weapons, and participate in actions that espouse violence and retaliation. Therefore, some questions that might arise are, "How can one come to a justification of a discrepancy between the doxa and the praxis of these respective religions?" "Are the teachings optional and are simply the ideal, but in actuality are not the real?" Or, "Are these teachings supposed to be completely followed, but are simply ignored by individuals and societies?" All of these questions must begin with one key piece, which can serve as a starting point to this discussion, which is this question: "Is nonviolence and pacifism obligatory or supererogatory in Christianity and Buddhism?" This question is the concept that will be explored in this paper. Historically, and on a global scale, it appears these concepts have been treated by most followers of their respective religions as though they are indeed supererogatory, but this paper will see if this thinking is justified by the texts of their religions or if it simply reactionary to the surrounding culture. understanding of terms Before one can tackle the questions about the obligatory or supererogatory nature of pacifism and nonviolence, one must have a firm grasp of the concepts and the meaning of the uses of these terms in this paper. Both of these terms when applied to moral concepts make inference about what is the best moral choice in a situation. Neither of the options is at conflict about what is the most good. To put it in simple terms, obligatory actions would be actions that are always required, and supererogatory actions are actions that may be deemed as good actions, yet these actions would be viewed as going beyond the call of duty, therefore not required. A baseline definition that could be used states, "Supererogatory actions are sometimes equated with actions that are morally good in the sense that they are encouraged by morality but not required by it."1 In other words, supererogatory acts are actions that may be encouraged and celebrated, but they are not morally required and are not viewed as duty. Supererogatory and obligatory actions are both actions that would be considered morally beneficial and good, one just simply has a stronger requirement attached. The doctrine of supererogation finds some of its philosophical roots in the Roman Catholic tradition and its early thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. On a surface level, some ethicists, such as those from a Kantian or utilitarian stream, may deem the doctrine of supererogation incompatible with their views. But Kantian ethics are complex, and even utilitarians may be able to hold to a form of supererogation. Some philosophers such as Thomas E. Hill and Adam Cureton have pointed out that through looking at utilitarian philosophers such as G. E. Moore and J. S. Hill: "… utilitarians could affirm that some acts are 'beyond duty' – not wrong, not [End Page 388] indifferent, but 'good to do' and praiseworthy."2 Regardless of whether one finds the concepts of supererogation and obligation convincing or not, this article is not looking to discuss the validity or potentiality of obligation or supererogation in broad scale ethics. Instead, the scope is viewing these concepts through the lens of Buddhism and Christianity when applied to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. To put these concepts into an example, a parent of a child would be required to feed and provide for his children. That is an obligation of a parent, and if one does feed and take care of one's child, then that individual could end up in jail and get their rights as a parent stripped. However, if another child showed up to that house, unclothed and hungry, it would be very good to help that child with food and clothing, but it would be a supererogatory action. That family might be limited on food, be concerned about their own safety, or have other reasons—that might make him not want to help the child out. It would be best to help the stray child, but not required, therefore not obligatory. Notice the core of supererogatory and that of obligatory questions are the same, they are not at ethical odds to one another, they both affirm the same core moral principle, but they have different views about how one is required to respond. Likewise, Christianity and Buddhism both teach that nonviolence and peace are morally superior responses, and the roots of nonviolence are quite frankly undeniable. The core focus of this paper will be observing the obligatory or supererogatory nature of these roots in each of the respective religions. In this paper when one refers to pacifism and nonviolence, the terms are expressed in their classical definitions. Pacifism itself is referring to the complete rejection of war, or as Robert L. Holmes simply states, a "Principled opposition to war."3 In Holmes's work, Pacifism, a Philosophy of Nonviolence, Holmes breaks pacifism into three subgroups: Warism: There are (a) some hypothetical wars and (b) some actual wars that are morally justifiable. Absolute Pacifism: There are (a) no hypothetical wars and (b) no actual wars that are morally justifiable. Relative Pacifism: There may be hypothetical wars that are morally justifiable but there are either (a) no actual wars (past or present) that are morally justifiable (Universal Pacifism) or (b) no actual wars in the modern world that are morally justifiable (Pragmatic Pacifism).4 For the sake of a standard definition, when looking at the concepts of supererogation and obligation in regard to pacifism, this paper will hold to relative pacifism, specifically in part (b), which is stating that in today's society there are no actual wars that are morally justifiable. When pacifism is mentioned, it will be using that definition. With that concept in mind, this paper does not intend to simply stop at pacifism. Some pacifists may condemn the concept of war and yet will affirm that at times violence is needed to maintain a proper society. For example, religious pacifists could [End Page 389] condemn war, yet personally affirm the justification of violence for reasons such as the death penalty, police force, personal defense, and so on. Therefore, the concept of nonviolence goes even further than pacifism, stating that there are never times in which humans should enact violence upon other humans. For these reasons this paper is classifying pacifism and nonviolence together, in that it is not only limiting itself simply to the concept of large-scale war, but also on a personal scale. Whereas pacifism has the tendency to denote large-scale war, nonviolence infers practices that individuals can and should apply to their own daily lives as well. In other words, nonviolence is a lifestyle and a deeper personal commitment than simply pacifism. By applying both terms together, it infers that one is condemning violence on not only a personal scale but also a global scale. Again, the scope of this paper is handling the issues of supererogation or obligation among the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity. Therefore, it will not be looking at arguments from moral approaches, pragmatism, ethics, or other views. The goal of this paper is not an overarching defense of pacifism and nonviolence as simply a concept, but an analysis of how Buddhist and Christian adherents are supposed to respond to their respective teachings. The concern is not whether pacifism is the most moral, or best for a society, or even if there are themes running through the teachings, but instead it is looking to see if pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory or supererogatory for Christians and Buddhists. christianity If one is to observe the modern views of Christians and violence, one will notice that the majority of adherents do not practice or ascribe to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. Therefore, one may assume that pacifism and nonviolence are either completely new concepts or some kind of modern twist on classic theological concepts. In other words, from a quick observation, one would assume that the teachings are supererogatory. Yet when looking at history, one could argue that they are not so much new concepts or supererogatory concepts, but are forgotten and neglected concepts. When one looks at the origins of the Christian faith, for about the first 300 years pacifism and nonviolence were the standard and the norm. One author points out, "The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, asserted that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented Christians from serving in the Roman army. Thus, the early Christians were essentially pacifists."5 As one can see through the above quote, early church fathers were not anomalies in their pacifist and nonviolent leanings. Others such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian, and Gregory of Nyssa, all held to views of pacifism and nonviolence. In fact, there are actually instances of pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, attacking Christianity on the basis of Christians not being willing to serve in the military. He spoke strongly against Christians, in that due to their pacifist leanings, Christians were bad for society.6 Origen himself quoted in Contra Celsum V, "No longer do we take the word against any nations nor do we learn war anymore since we have become the sons of peace through Jesus …"7 The earliest followers of Jesus [End Page 390] understood the concepts of avoiding violence not as optional, but as a basic tenet of being a follower of Christ. The shift in thinking really changed following the legalization of Christianity and the subsequent conversion of Emperor Constantine. In the beginning of the fourth century, Constantine not only legalized Christianity and accepted it personally, but he made it the favored religion of the empire. From Constantine's conversion there arose a strong conundrum. How could one justify being both a ruler of a powerful empire that has relied on war and violence and espouse Christian beliefs? Christianity experienced its first taste of societal power. Constantinian Christianity shifted Christianity from its truest form and instead created a version that fit better with modern societies and with the new-found power it experienced. Thus, from this period of time is when one begins to see the main development of Just War Theory, and the writings of Just War Theory become more prevalent. Augustine of Hippo provided some of the main concepts to introduce theories of Just War, reasoning that if God gave Christians the power of the sword, one has a responsibility to use it. As Greg Boyd quotes about the newly formed theory, "Pagans throughout history have equated military power with divine favor. What was shockingly new, however, is that Jesus' own followers now thought this way."8 Augustine and the Constantinian empire started the aligning of the ways of Jesus and war, but the theory of Just War really was delved into and made more of a doctrine by Thomas Aquinas, then built upon by protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther. Although Constantinian Christendom and the arrival of just war theory dealt a blow to the adherence of pacifism and nonviolence in Christian tradition, it continues to remain alive in various other groups. Groups such as the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, as well as Russian spiritual Christian groups (such as the Molokans and Doukhobors) remain fully committed to the teachings of nonviolence and pacifism. Many groups today have roots of pacifism such as the Seventh Day Adventists as well as the Pentecostal movement. Currently within all current strains of Christianity—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestantism, one will find adherents still holding to the concepts of pacifism and nonviolence. These concepts have been the backbone of many modern social movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, who quotes "Through nonviolent resistance we shall be able to oppose the unjust system and at the same time love the perpetrators of the system."9 The roots of pacifism are there and are still very much alive, this is due to the evidence for ascribing to these views, which will now be viewed. In Christianity the primary teachings of nonviolence and peace come from Jesus's teachings himself, but the themes of nonviolence are also found throughout the Old Testament of the Bible and the rest of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, violence undeniably existed and at times was also permitted. One can see that at certain times, war and the fighting of Israel's enemies were ordained by God; and certain other acts of violence such as capital punishment were prevalent. These did occur and at times were means used to bring peace to the society, but it was never the ideal. For example, priests were not allowed to take part in any violence; in [End Page 391] fact, King David was not allowed to even build the temple due to his history of violence.10 The goal and the expectation were that there would be a time when violence and war would be eliminated. Proverbs 3:31 confirms that violent thinking is not correct, "Do not envy the violent or any of their ways." In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, one text states "And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war nor will they train for war anymore."11 The hope and expectation for nonviolence were the goal. This is why although one would not classically define the Old Testament or Judaism as a pacifist religion, one can still find some Jewish scholarship, such as scholars like Yonassan Gershom, Steven S. Schwarzschild, and Arthur Waskow, who make cases for pacifism in Judaism and the Old Testament. This thinking continues to move forward to the core teachings of the Christian faith, through the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament. Jesus himself acknowledged that at one point, there were previously teachings of war and retaliation in the scriptures, but now humanity has entered into a new era. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."12 This verse acknowledges that, in fact, in the previous dispensation, the way that things were ethically done was through a system of violence and retaliation, yet now a new era has begun and we are under a different dispensation. It is emphasized through the phrases "… it was said …" and then "But I tell you …" These are the new teachings that Christians are told to abide by. This same concept continues and is expounded on in the next few verses, You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.13 Leo Tolstoy expounded further on this text stating, We believe that the penal code of the old covenant – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth – has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile them, or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.14 [End Page 392] These examples are just some core examples of Jesus's teachings, but these themes are found in all of the gospels. Jesus emphasizes this teaching in his direct command to Peter as one can see in Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." In this command we see Jesus not just speaking in philosophical lofty ideals, but in real-time situations commanding his followers to avoid violence and choose the path of nonviolence. It takes the previous teachings of Jesus and moves them toward actual real-life application, thus showing us there is no place for violence and retaliation for followers of Jesus. The thinking continues into the teachings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in Romans, the Apostle Paul states, Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mind, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.15 An interesting word here is "never," which occurs before the command of not taking revenge, but also before not paying back evil with evil as well. This points toward the fact that the concept of nonresistance is not a situational principle but is one applicable to all situations. Theologically, Christianity also retains its commitment to nonviolence. We see this through a few concepts. Specifically, one of the key concepts that one can see is the concept of the imago Dei. According to the theological premise of the imago Dei, every human is created in the image of God, the creator. Therefore, everyone has intrinsic value. Not value based upon who they are because of actions, status, and so on, but simply by being a human, one has great value. Thus, causing any harm to other human beings is in some way causing harm to the Creator. According to the principle of God's image in humanity, people are to be treated as sacred, life is sacred, and the enemy is not humanity, but rather the enemy is the evil that at times humanity gives into. This springs into the next concept, which is found throughout the New Testament and is especially put forth by the Apostle Paul, which is the concept of principalities and powers. The Bible states, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."16 For people who follow Jesus, the paradigm that tells people who are enemies and who are not enemies has completely shifted. No longer are people themselves enemies, but the unseen forces, the demonic, and the power of evil is. At times people may seem like the enemy, but according to Paul, it is the evil working inside of them, not the actual people themselves. This requires the followers of Jesus to take on a completely different mindset, [End Page 393] one that does not follow human values or logic, one that is not self-preserving or insider group oriented, but instead it is a radical concept, that always places others first. Theologically this can come into play with the concept of loving one's neighbor as themselves. In parables such the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells his followers that even our enemies can be our neighbors, who still require love and kindness. In this parable found in Luke 10:25–37, Jesus speaks about a man who is beaten, robbed, and left to die in the desert. A priest walks buy and does not help, then a Levite walks by and does not help. Then finally a Samaritan walks by and helps the wounded man. Jesus then goes on to ask his audience, "Who is the real neighbor?" The catch is that Samaritans were notoriously outsiders to the Jews, they were theologically heretical, had a history of violence to the Jewish people, yet they are the ones who are called neighbors, and the character is one who helps the Jew in the story. Jesus commands the love of one's neighbor, then goes onto say that all of humanity is our neighbor. Robert Gundry sums up the meaning of the parable by stating, "Being a neighbor means treating any needy person near you as your neighbor without laboring over a definition, whereas laboring over the definition of a neighbor keeps you from helping the needy person"17 Any person, whether good or evil, friend or foe deserves proper treatment. If one understands these concepts along with the textual evidence, one can clearly see that nonviolence is taught by Jesus and has theological backing that is found throughout the whole New Testament. Although one might see differences in the Old Testament, there are new commandments that explicitly supersede previous teachings found in the Old Testament. Finally, one strong indicator to the obligatory nature of the teachings of nonviolence in the Bible has do with a lack of counter-argument. Throughout the New Testament, there are no contradictory concepts that can be found, and nonviolence is always the norm and the standard. As Greg Boyd states, "… there are no exception clauses found anywhere in the New Testament's teaching about loving and doing good to enemies."18 The only instances of violence and war that can be found are ones of eschatological violence, that have to do with the returning of Jesus at the end of time. There is no sense of a just war theory, instead there are simply calls by Jesus and the New Testament writers to a radical life of peace and nonviolence. If people do a textual and theological study, separate from Christian culture and human rationale, one can come to the conclusion that nonviolence is indeed obligatory for those who hold to the Christian faith. For Christians who hold a high view of the Bible, it appears that pacifism and nonviolence are more accurate options than traditional just war theory. As Leo Tolstoy plainly states, "Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodsheds for bloodshed and life for life."19 A final note about this has to do with the way Christians tend to view ethical concepts. In Christianity, ethical concepts tend to be nonsituational. Meaning, principles that are viewed as correct are always viewed as correct. Christianity has a strong tendency in its ethics to state that the principles, which are condemned or celebrated, are always condemned or celebrated. Historically, the Christian church has stated that people should follow Jesus and take him at his word and that the commands are not [End Page 394] situational and are not supererogatory. This, therefore, would point to the fact that even though most Christians do not hold nonviolence and pacifism to be obligatory, according to Christian teachings, nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory for Christians. buddhism One can see from the Christian religion that the teachings of nonviolence are obligatory. But what about Buddhism? Historically Buddhism tends to have a stereotype as a more peaceful religion than Christianity. Few wars and revolutions have been started in the name of Buddha; and teachings of peace and doing no harm are more consistently and universally daily components of basic Buddhist teachings, thus giving a general consensus that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. The concept of nonviolence or the Ahimsa is a well-developed principle. But are these teachings of nonviolence obligatory or supererogatory in Buddhism? Historically, Buddhism has a strong presence of pacifism and nonviolence. Due to its peaceful nature, Buddhism has a history of being viewed as a religion that can have the strength and ability to resolve conflicts. Historically, one can see a pattern of kings and rulers using Buddhist monks to negotiate the ending of violent conflicts such as war.20 One common Buddhist Jataka story includes two warring tribes on each side of a river. Upon these tribes hearing the teachings of Buddha, they threw their weapons into the river and made peace.21 One of the most striking examples of this probably has do with the conversion of the Indian Emperor Asoka in around 263 BCE. Previously a war lord of sorts, and a violent conqueror of many regions, once Asoka became a Buddhist, he completely renounced all forms of violence. This was due to the fact that he realized that the overarching teachings of the Buddha called him to a life of nonviolence and peace. It is stated about his history, "Emperor Asoka made ahimsa the central theme of his famous 'dharma conquest.' Asoka erected hundreds of stones and pillars throughout this kingdom, encouraging his subjects to live by ahimsa and to become vegetarians."22 This thinking and adherence to nonviolence and pacifism continued through the ages and have impacted nonviolent social action, various societies, and even empires. Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale. One concept that could shed light on understanding this tension could be through the Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta of the Pali scriptures it states, There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata—producing vision, producing knowledge—leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.23 For many followers of Buddhism, especially for the lay practitioners of the religion, a place of moderation and middle road is stressed, not extremism. In Christianity it could be argued that the concept of obligation is found throughout all of the teachings, and in Buddhism, the concept of supererogation is much more frequent. Christianity has standards that do not typically differ between the clergy and the laymen. In Buddhism, however, monks are expected to keep more rules than laypeople. It appears that at times the Buddha encouraged a middle way, a sense of ethics that could shift at times to fit the scenario. Ethical standards can be different at different times for different people. For example, Peter Harvey states when looking at early Buddhist texts that there is, "… The ideal of nonviolent rule as expressed in the early Buddhist texts. Yet it seems to be acknowledged that this is an ideal that can be fully lived up to only by an exceptional person."24 The concept is there, but is for exceptional individuals, which, by nature of that statement, infers supererogation. One other aspect that can add clarity to the situation is to view some other texts of Buddhism as well. Many other texts speak strongly to the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, it clearly states, "All tremble at violence; life is dear to all, Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill."25 Another text it even goes as far to condemn even the occupations [End Page 396] associated with violence, "These five trades, O monks, should not be taken up by a lay follower: trading with weapons, trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, trading in poison."26 Violence and power are not the proper ways of Buddhism. In similar theme to that of the apostle Paul's writing, Masao Abe points out, "Buddha never fought against hostile powers with power … This basic attitude is expressed in his following words 'Not by hatred is hatred appeased. Hatred is appeased by renouncing of hatred. It is so conquered only by compassion. This is a law eternal.'"27 When one takes the Four Noble Truths and then combines them with the concepts found in the Eightfold Path, one will gain a rather robust view advocating for social action and nonviolence. To extend these concepts even further, one could view the Buddhist concept of the Three Poisons: greed, anger, and ignorance. While Christianity spends the majority of its time addressing proper responses to nonviolence and pacifism, Buddhism has the tendency to focus more on the roots and the reasons for why violence and war exist in the first place. Thus, if one looks at the Three Poisons, then views wars throughout history, one will see that the roots of violence and war are typically found through greed, anger, and ignorance. The perplexing issue though is that while this precept on nonviolence is a backbone of the Buddhist tradition, there also appears to simultaneously be a history in the Buddhist scriptures referring to war and violence. One Sutra is especially interesting in regard to these concepts. This would be the Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra. In this Sutra we can see that there are violent threats, warnings against excessive compassion, acts of torture that are ordered, an affirmation of the death penalty, and the allowing of a war under special conditions. In the work, Buddhist Warfare, Buddhist scholars Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer analyze the text. They go on to state, "General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support their use of force, which show a concern for defense, political stability, and social order through a combination of harshness and benevolence."28 They state at another point, "We can see from the example of the Arya-Bodhisattvagocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra that Buddhist kings had conceptual resources at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments."29 One thing that can be realized though is that the although at times it appears that violence is allowed, there is still compassion involved. It is not ever suggesting that war or violence is a good thing, but more a necessary reaction. This thinking is continued into modern analysis of classic Buddhist doctrine. In Being Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism, Sallie B. King states, An infrequently cited Pali text, the Cakkavatti Sihandada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, seems to give legitimacy to the military in a Buddhist state. In it, the [End Page 397] Buddha is recorded as giving the following advice to the one who aspires to be a Cakravartin: 'Yourself depending on the Dhamma, honoring it, revering it, cherishing it, doing homage to it and venerating it, having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to the Dhamma for your own household, your troops, your nobles and vassals, for the Brahmins and householders, town and country folk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds.' Thus is justified the existence of a military force for the purpose of protection.30 Buddhādasa Bhikkhu, who was a prominent Thai monk and Buddhist scholar, commented as well about the usage of violence and force in Buddhism stated, "No matter what kind of activity we carry out – be it politics, economics or, indeed, even war – if done morally it will maintain the natural, harmonious balance of all things, and will be consistent with the original plan of nature. It is absolutely correct to fight for the preservation of dhamma in the world, but it is wrong to fight for anything other than that. Indeed, we should be happy to sacrifice our lives in fighting to preserve dhamma for … all humanity"31 There appears to be an overarching thinking in Buddhism that at times war and violence may be needed to preserve the Dhamma, peace, and social order. One must remember though that any actions of violence still may have karmic ramifications. E. J. Harris comments on the relation of potential just action and karmic consequences, "The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has indeed to take the consequences into account. He has to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his actions will inevitable bear fruit … such a person needs to evaluate motives … Yet that person might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil."32 Harris realizes that one may deem the need for violence necessary, but even then one must be very wary and careful due to the potential karmic ramifications that could occur from violent actions. In conclusion, in Buddhism, while on a surface level it would appear that pacifism and nonviolence are obligatory, this initial observation appears incorrect. Through viewing various teachings: from the sacred texts, current scholars, as well as through Buddhist philosophical thought, one will come to the understanding that nonviolence, doing no harm, and pacifism are not obligatory but are in fact supererogatory. In Buddhism, there is an overarching principle of supererogatory ethics when viewing the teachings of Buddha and the Sutras. There are times where a call to nonviolence becomes supererogatory, and potentially other methods are allowed. Buddhism certainly promotes peace and pushes toward doing no harm, but it would appear that it would align more with a just-war type of theory than typical pacifism. Pacifism and nonviolence still remain the ideal, yet when confronted with some other texts and concepts, one can see an allowance for compassionate violence and resistance. There is a tension found in Buddhism. One author states, "… war is unjustifiable according to Buddhist thought although it remains a useful literary device. In practice, [End Page 398] however, whether war is justifiable is less clear."33 This explains the tension and the potential allowance of war and violence. Yet even during those times of allowance, it appears that one who would choose the way of Ahimsa that would still be viewed as the most morally correct. conclusion When analyzing and comparing, the religions of Buddhism and of Christianity concepts of nonviolence and pacifism are certainly emphasized and prevalent. Oddly, in a religion that has a longer history with traditions of war and violence, the teachings appear to be obligatory, and in the tradition that has historically been ascribed with a peace and nonviolence, the teachings are actually supererogatory. Buddhism has consistently emphasized nonviolence; therefore, more adherents have responded to this teaching even though the teaching is supererogatory. What are the ramifications of this knowledge that nonviolence and pacifism are obligatory in Christianity and supererogatory in Buddhism? They are potentially simply reminders for both religions to continue in their traditions of peacemaking. The core issue is that followers of the Christian faith need to do a reassessment of their own commitment. Are they willing to "come and die" as Jesus calls them to? Or will they choose to ignore texts that appear inconvenient or illogical in today's world? That is a decision that the Christian church must come to understand. As stated earlier, in the early days, the Christian church seemed to hold stronger to the commitment to the teachings of Jesus. In When Religion Becomes Evil, the author states "The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence."34 He continues, "Christianity and war were incompatible. Christians were charged with undermining the Roman Empire by refusing military service and public office: they answered that human life was sacred to them, that they were … given over to peace, that God prohibits killing even in a just cause, without exception, that the weapons of the Christian were prayer, justice, and suffering."35 The modern church needs to return to this stance, if it wants to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. For Buddhists, scholars and leaders must keep wrestling with the fact that although peace is indeed promoted and is one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism, there appears to be a form of allowance for war and other actions. One must try to understand the tension that is there. For Buddhists who hold strongly to the concepts of nonviolence and pacifism, they must be aware that there are factions in Buddhism who would not hold to the same understandings and would find completely logical rationalizations for their justifications of violence within Buddhism. One must realize that there can be other teachings of violence and must learn to argue and emphasize the key concepts of nonviolence in Buddhism, based upon supererogatory concepts. It is realized and noted that both religions have many different schools, traditions, and crosscurrents and at times have been two religious views that can have difficulty in dialogue. Paul Knitter and Roger Corless state, "… the Buddhas and the [End Page 399] Christian God function in their own universes and it is not at all clear whether these universes relate to each other at all, and, if they do, in what way or ways."36 With awareness of these differences, it can be seen that for both religions, peace and nonviolence could be one starting point and bridge for dialogue and for joint social change. Buddhism and Christianity appear to be the forerunners for social change through the means of nonviolence and pacifism. If societies that espouse these faith traditions would return to their purist roots, one might see a much more peaceful society and world. Collectively, if both religions can see that this is a building point in each of their respective faiths, they should be able to share ideas and values to impact societies toward social change. Next Article Share Additional Information Project MUSE Mission Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.	Many Buddhist individuals in the modern era are harbingers of peace and nonviolence such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Preah Maha Ghosananda, and even the Dalai Lama. Modern groups such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship continue to have an impact alongside other factions of modern socially engaged Buddhists. To begin looking at the roots of the themes on nonviolence and pacifism, one must of course look at the Five Precepts, which are the key principles that every Buddhist is expected to try to follow. The Five Precepts of Buddhism are five things to abstain from: killing living beings, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and using intoxicants. These precepts are designed to be a base ethical code that even laymen should obey. As has been noted, the first of these concepts is to abstain from killing living beings. If a Buddhist is desiring to stay on the Eightfold Path and wants to advance through the four stages of enlightenment, then one must hold to the first precept. It is interesting [End Page 395] here to note that the first precept does not simply infer humanity, but all living beings. Therefore, to kill insects, other animals, or really anything that has a life would be doing something in opposition to the first principle. Many genuine Buddhists, while holding to the first precept, will still consume meat and kill insects in their home. Could this infer that it is not so much of an obligatory practice as much as a potentially supererogatory? Or is it the same as Christians who take part in war, even though nonviolence is obligatory? There will always be adherents who do not follow their respective religions in all aspects, but something more insightful might be the fact that in Buddhism, due to the karmic nature of sin, certain sins are more egregious than others and have greater karmic ramifications than others. Christianity has the tendency to place sin as sin, with each sin being on par with one another, while Buddhism tends to have more of a sliding scale.	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493216/	Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice - StatPearls ...	Affiliations Continuing Education Activity The diversity of religion within our world's population brings challenges for health care providers and systems to deliver culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care. This activity highlights the importance of cultural competence in clinical medicine and its consequences. Introduction The diversity of religions around the world creates challenges for health care providers and systems to provide culturally competent medical care. Cultural competence is the ability of health providers and organizations to deliver health care services that meet the cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and their families. Culturally competent care can improve patient quality and care outcomes. Strategies to move health professionals and systems towards these goals include providing cultural competence training and developing policies and procedures that decrease barriers to providing culturally competent patient care.[1][2][3][4] Consequences of Cultural Competence Deficiencies If providers and health care systems are not working together to provide culturally competent care, patients may have untoward health consequences, receive poor quality care, and be dissatisfied with the care they receive. The quality of patient-health professional interactions is decreased. Lower-quality patient-health professional interactions are associated with decreased satisfaction in the healthcare provider. In fact, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Muslims report that the quality of their care was diminished because of their ethnicity or race.[5][6][7][8] Why should providers and systems be culturally and spiritually sensitive? The Joint Commission (TJC) requires hospitals to be accountable for maintaining patient rights, including accommodation for cultural, religious, and spiritual values. Healthcare professionals and systems must care for patients as whole persons; this includes the body, mind, and spirit. It is important for healthcare to include the cultural and spiritual needs of the patient. Healthcare professionals should be empowered with the knowledge and skills to respond to the needs of patients and their families at an intensely stressful time. Institutions that seek or maintain TJC accreditation need to demonstrate expertise in cultural and religious competence. Health systems and healthcare providers are developing strategies and techniques to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families for a number of reasons. One reason is that, in addition to TJC, state and federal guidelines encourage institutional responsiveness to population diversity. These strategies are essential to meeting the federal government's Healthy People goal of eliminating ethnic and racial health disparities.[9][10][11][12] Culturally Competent Medical Care Patient's beliefs, behaviors, and values are shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, language, mental ability, nationality, occupation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Cultural competence is the provider and systems able to understand and integrate cultural intelligence into the delivery of healthcare. The goal of providing culturally competent health care services is to provide consistent quality of care to every patient, regardless of their cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious background. Strategies for improving cultural competence in individuals and systems include: Encouraging family to participate in healthcare decision making. Incorporating culture-specific values into health promotion Providing cultural awareness training Providing an environment that allows traditional healers Providing interpreter services Recruiting minority staff When individuals and systems are able to provide a positive environment of cultural competence that meets the religious and spiritual needs of those who are cared for, the outcome for patients improves, and the healthcare system as a whole becomes a more positive environment. Religion and Healthcare Why are religion and spirituality important in healthcare? Religion and spirituality are important factors in the majority of patients seeking care. Unfortunately, health providers may not take religious beliefs into account when they are dealing with difficult medical decisions for patients and their families. In the history of man, religious leaders and health providers were often the same. Only within recent times has medicine taken on a scientific approach that has resulted in a separation between medicine and religion. The challenge for health professionals is in understanding that patients often turn to their religious and spiritual beliefs when making medical decisions. Religion and spirituality can impact decisions regarding diet, medicines based on animal products, modesty, and the preferred gender of their health providers. Some religions have strict prayer times that may interfere with medical treatment. Healthcare providers should be respectful of a patient’s religious and spiritual needs. Many patient’s anxieties are reduced when they turn to their faith during healthcare challenges. Because many patients turn to their beliefs when difficult healthcare decisions are made, it is vital for healthcare professionals to recognize and accommodate the patient's religious and spiritual needs. Health professionals should provide an opportunity for patients to discuss their religious and spiritual beliefs and tailor their evaluation and treatment to meet their specific needs.[13][14][15] Issues of Concern Religion and spirituality play an important role in the medical decisions of many patients. The following is an alphabetical list of the religious and spiritual groups most commonly encountered in a healthcare environment and a summary of their views. Knowledge of these beliefs can affect patient-provider communication, resulting in more culturally sensitive care and improved quality of treatment and outcomes.[16][17][18][19] Baha'i Baha'i teaches the essential worth of all religions and the equality and unity of all people. Beliefs Abandonment of all prejudice: race, religion, gender, or community Education for all children Abolition of extreme wealth and poverty Individual responsibility to search for the truth The oneness of God, the unity of humanity, and the essential harmony of religion Religion is a divine revelation that is continuous and progressive. Religion and science exist in harmony. Sexual equality is a spiritual and moral standard. Humanity's oneness and the wholeness of human relationships Unity among diverse groups is possible God is in every force in the universe. One God has a single plan within the teachings of the major world religions. The promise of world peace Death An individual’s reality is spiritual, not physical. The body is the throne of the soul, worthy to be treated with honor and respect even when dead. The soul is eternal and progresses to the next stage of existence, closer to God. Organs may be donated The body should be buried, not cremated, preferably without embalming unless required by law. The body must not be transported more than one hour’s journey from the place of death. For children over 15 years old, the Prayer for the Dead is recited at the burial. Diet Patients over age 15 and in good health abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala (meaning Loftiness) from March 2 through 20. Eating is for health. Abstain from drugs when health is good, but may take them when necessary, including narcotic pain medicines, if prescribed by a clinician. Blood transfusion is acceptable. Consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs is forbidden. Holy Tenets Daily prayer and reading of sacred writings. Seven Holy Day festivals per year during which one does not go to school or work. Work performed in the spirit of service is the highest form of worship. Pregnancy Circumcision of males is a family decision. Do not believe in abortion. No requirements; rarely use birth control. Sexual intercourse only between husband and wife. Rituals Daily private prayer and annual fast lasting throughout the day from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ala from March 2 through March 20. Symbols and Rites The nine-pointed star is the symbol of the faith. Local, national, and international representatives perform special religious rituals. Prayers for private worship. Clinical Issues Avoid sterilization procedures unless needed for the preservation of the mother. Believe prayer assists in healing; allow uninterrupted time for prayer. Believe a balanced and nutritious diet helps prevent disease. Blood transfusion acceptable. Will most likely avoid birth control. Buddhism Buddhism encompasses a variety of beliefs, spiritual practices, and traditions based on original teachings attributed to the Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Beliefs Buddhists follow the path to enlightenment by developing his or her wisdom, morals, and meditation. Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17). Following the example of Christ Jesus, Christian Scientists rely on consecrated prayer to God, the eternal good, and rooted in a faith lifted to spiritual perception, as a practical and reliable method to care for all human needs, including their health. Death There is no church policy on burial, but the body is best prepared for burial by one of the same sex. An autopsy may be sought in cases of sudden decease. There is no church policy on euthanasia, but Christian Scientists revere life and strive to overcome and heal suicidal tendencies. There is no church policy on organ donations, blood donations, or transfusions. Diet Avoid tobacco and food or drink which contains alcohol and sometimes caffeine. If brought to a medical provider involuntarily, adherents may wish to choose to rely solely on spiritual means for healing. But they are free to decide. Once subject to medical care, they would not normally second-guess medical expertise. They may prefer minimal intervention where it is an option. Holy Tenets Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by church founder Mary Baker Eddy, is the definitive statement of Christian Science teachings. This book includes six religious tenets or key points of Christian Science, summarized in 1894 by a Chicago journalist in the Daily Inter-Ocean: “The ‘confession of faith’ [of Christian Science] includes the declaration that the Scriptures are the guide to eternal Life; that there is a Supreme Being, and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that man is made in His image. It affirms the atonement; it recognizes Jesus as the teacher and guide to salvation; the forgiveness of sin by God, and affirms the power of Truth over error, and the need of living faith at the moment to realize the possibilities of the divine Life.” The final Tenet, not represented in this summary, takes the form of a sacred Christian commitment: “And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.” (SH p. 497) Rituals Church services are simple and Bible-centered. Patients might appreciate access to online resources such as church services, weekly topical Bible lessons, or church periodicals. Members typically pray and study the Bible and other religious teachings daily. No traditional ritual sacraments, though there is a simple communion service and a special Thanksgiving Day service. The Bible is central to Christian Science. It is interpreted in the Christian Science textbook, Science, and Health, the authoritative guide for adherents. Lay readers conduct church services. There is no clergy. Clinical Significance Christian Scientists and their children have often availed themselves of religious belief accommodations for vaccination, but the choice is individual, and members are encouraged to comply with applicable public health laws (including vaccination and quarantines where required). They are taught not to fear vaccines. Usually do not seek immediate medical care. They may prefer no, or minimal, medical intervention and drugs during pregnancy, labor, and birth – and they may request a midwife. Abortions are likely not favored. But church policy does not dictate any of this, nor does it cover birth control. Medical professionals will want to be sensitive to members’ preference against too much description of the severity, dangerousness, and fixed reality of the disorders or traumas treated – including matters of mental health. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) Mormons are a religious group of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, initiated by Joseph Smith. The Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Utah Territory. Mormons dedicate time and resources to serving in the church, and many young Mormons choose a full-time proselytizing mission. Beliefs The building of temples where personal and sacred covenants can be entered into with the Lord. Daily Prayer and reading of Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of God. Members are spiritual daughters and sons of a living Father in Heaven. They tend to be family-oriented and have strong connections to their extended family, reflective of their belief that families are connected after death. Mortality on earth is a probationary period to test to see if members will obey the Lord’s commandments given through current and ancient prophets. Death All individuals will be resurrected and attain a degree of glory in heaven for acts during their mortality. Autopsy permitted. Euthanasia is not allowed. Organ donation permitted. Promote dignified death, if inevitable. Diet Alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco are discouraged. Fasting is required once each month; ill people are not required to fast. Health Blood and blood products acceptable. Faith in Jesus Christ to heal with medical. Holy Tenets Follow basic Christian holidays. Pregnancy Procreation is a central purpose of life. Abortion is forbidden except in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Artificial insemination acceptable between husband and wife. Birth control is a decision left to the couple; per the LDS Church, "the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord." Rituals Blessing and naming of children. Family home evenings once a week. Two elders are required for the blessing of the sick. Symbols and Rites Designated leaders for specific roles, including Bishops and Elders. King James Version of the New and Old Testaments the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scriptures. No formal clergy. Clinical Significance May avoid drugs containing alcohol and caffeine. Eastern Orthodox The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus Christ. Beliefs A person’s communion with God is expressed in love; where there is no love, God is absent, and no spiritual life exists. All are saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, are still being saved through participation in the church, and will be saved again in the future second coming of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human, and the Holy Spirit enables humanity to apprehend God’s presence in the world. God reveals Himself in the Bible as living and present. It is considered to be the “Word of God,” though not considered inerrant or literal. The Nicene Creed is recited at every Divine Liturgy, which summarizes the beliefs of the Church. In the Orthodox view, the Trinity is three persons, one in essence and undivided. The veneration of Mary is referred to as the Theotokos or God-bearer as she carried the New Covenant in the person of Christ. Consecration invoked by a priest that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Death The departed soul is affected by intercessory prayers; redemption and reconciliation with God may be possible even after death. Holy Unction anointing with oil is administered to the sick by Orthodox clergy on the Wednesday of Holy Week between Palm Sunday and Easter. The church offers prayers for the dead on the 3rd, 9th, 40th and upon the one-year anniversary of the death. When a person passes, the traditional saying is “Memory Eternal.” Diet Fast from meat, dairy, and oil for a 40-day period during Great (beginning seven weeks before Easter ) and Christmas (November 15 through December 24) Lent. After the Divine Liturgy, the fast is broken with a joyous community feast. Fast from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting is flexible if pregnant and for those with health concerns. Health Allow blood transfusions and blood products. God is the “Divine Physician,” the healer of our bodies and souls, which is facilitated through prayer and Church participation. The followers of Islam are Muslims who believe in one God, Allah, and his prophet Abraham. They believe Adam, of the Bible's Old Testament, was the first prophet. Other prophets include Abraham, David, Jesus, Moses, and Noah. Beliefs Complete submission to God Judgment day Life after death Muhammad God's messenger Required to pray 5 times a day Give 2.5% to a charitable cause once each year. Oneness of God, his angels, scriptures, and messengers Pilgrimage to Mecca is required at least once in their lifetime. Ramadan is a month-long fast of drink, food, and no sexual intercourse during daylight. Reward and punishment The Quran is the final revelation of humanity. One God, Allah Death Autopsy only for legal or medical reasons Confession of sins and begging forgiveness may occur before death. Death in God’s plan Euthanasia prohibited Organ donation acceptable Prayer for the deceased led by a male within 72 hours after death; death certificate should be signed quickly to facilitate the process. Diet Children, women who are pregnant, and those who are ill may be exempt from fasting. Ramadan is during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar and lasts 29 or 30 days, depending on the year. Wash face, hands, and feet before prayer. Pregnancy Abortion is prohibited except in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is threatened. A fetus is considered a human being after 25-weeks of gestation. Symbols Only symbols the Holy Quran Some women are required to wear a burqa, covering the head, face, and entire body, including hands and feet, or a hajib, a veil covering the head but leaving the face uncovered. Clinical Significance Find the same-sex practitioner if not an acute emergency. Shia Muslims Approximately 15% of Muslims are Shia. Iran and Iraq have a majority of Shia Muslims. Shia means Party of Ali. Shia Muslims are a minority in the rest of the world. Shia Muslims pray three times a day; Sunni Muslims pray five times a day. Shia Muslims believe that when Muhammad died, it was his wish that Ali, his cousin, would be the new caliph. They believe that the leaders of Islam should be direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims ignore the elected Sunni leaders and instead follow their leaders, which are direct descendants of Muhammad called Imams. Sunni Muslims Most Muslims are Sunni. Sunni means the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad's wish upon his death was that the next leader would be elected. Sunni Muslims believe the leaders of Islam should continue to be elected. Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system is imminent. The establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the solution for all problems faced by humanity. Beliefs The world will be restored to a state of paradise; beneficiaries of Christ will be resurrected with healthy physical bodies and inhabit the earth. Do not give gifts on holidays and do not recognize birthdays or national holidays. God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is his son. The Holy Spirit is God’s motivating force. Reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Do not salute the national flag or sing the national anthem and refuse military service. Death Autopsy acceptable if legally required Body organ donation is a personal choice. Death is a state of unconsciousness. Euthanasia is forbidden Diet Avoid any food that contains blood. Meat products must be properly drained of blood. Health Refuse blood transfusion and blood products Whether to prolong life or the right to die is an individual choice. Holy Issues An annual congregational celebration of the memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death changes annually Prayer and reading of scriptures Meetings are held three times a week in local Kingdom Halls with a focus on education. Pregnancy Abortion is forbidden Artificial insemination by donors is forbidden. Birth control is an individual choice. Rituals Adult baptism Shunning of those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines Symbols None Clinical Significance Refuse all blood products Judaism Judaism is the expression of the covenant that God established with the Children of Israel. Judaism includes texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Beliefs One all-powerful God who created the universe God communicated the commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they are written in the Torah. Commandments, commitments, duties, and obligations have priority over individual pleasures and rights. Sanctity of life overrides religious obligations. Orthodox Jews: Strict interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is divine and unalterable. Following the code of Jewish Law Protestantism originated with the Reformation, a movement against what followers believed to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize justification by faith alone rather than by good works and the highest authority of the Bible alone in faith and morals. Beliefs Community worship is important. Emphasis on the Holy Bible and Scriptures Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Death Autopsy, organ donation acceptable Euthanasia is generally not acceptable. Diet No restrictions Health Blood, blood products are an individual choice. Holy Issues Daily prayer and Scripture reading Traditional holidays observances Pregnancy Baptism of infants practiced in some denominations Birth control and artificial insemination are individual choices. Rituals Anointing, prayer, Eucharist, and other rituals Prayers for healing, individual prayer, and the Sacraments Symbols Bible Cross Most ordain both men and women while some only men. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare Rastafarian Movement Both a religious movement and a social movement developed in Jamaica. It lacks any centralized authority. Rastafari refer to their beliefs as "Rastalogy." It is a monotheistic belief in a single God—Jah—who partially resides within each. Beliefs African civilization and culture are superior. Being as close to nature as possible Dream of returning to Africa Following the Old Testament Jah is the Messiah promised in the Bible. Love and respect for all living things One God, Jah, the former emperor of Ethiopia, incarnated Spiritual use of marijuana Believe in everlasting life; may not talk about terminal illness or impending death. Diet Limited or no meat, pork, or shellfish May be vegan Avoid alcohol Caribbean food is popular with fruits and vegetables. May only want to eat natural foods. Health The body is seen as a church and may be hesitant to put anything unnatural into it. Daily Practices Buttons and pins with images of Haile Selassie or the Lion of Judah Dreadlocks common May wear robes, headscarves, and knit hats. Pregnancy Birth control individual choice but may not want non-natural drugs. Rituals Dancing, singing, and marijuana use Old Testament readings Symbols Local, national, and international representatives may perform special religious rituals. Marijuana is common during ceremonies and is seen as cleansing spiritually and is written about in the Bible. May avoid taking non-natural drugs. Often use green, red, and yellow colors. Spiritual use of marijuana Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of medications or drugs that contain alcohol. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church. The Catholic religion teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, its bishops are successors of Christ's apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ conferred primacy. Beliefs Belief in Apostolic leaders that are male successors of the original apostles of Jesus The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian that observes Saturday, the seventh day of the week in Christian and Jewish calendars, as Sabbath. The religion also emphasizes the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings correspond to common Protestant Christian teachings, such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Unique teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. Religion emphasizes diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, conservative principles, lifestyle, and promotion of religious liberty. Beliefs Bible is interpreted literally. The body is the temple of God and must be kept healthy. Duty to warn others to prepare for the second coming of Christ. Death Autopsy and organ donation acceptable. Death is a state of unconsciousness with a return to consciousness with the Second Advent or coming of Christ. Euthanasia is not practiced. Diet Consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea is a matter of individual choice, although most refrain. May practice fasting Vegetarian diet Health Emphasize rehabilitation and therapeutic diets. Healing is accomplished through medical intervention and divine healing. Many avoid narcotics or stimulants. No restrictions on blood or blood products. No restrictions on surgical procedures. Physicians and chaplains are inseparable. Holy Issues Daily Prayer Saturday is the Sabbath. Pregnancy Abortion is discouraged. Birth control is acceptable. No infant baptism. Rituals An ill person anointed with oil; elders and Pastors and elders may pray. Symbols Pastors and elders may be male or female. Clinical Significance May require a special restricted diet. Sikhism Sikhism originated in the Punjab region of India. It is one of the newest of the major world religions. The fundamental belief is faith and meditation in the name of one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct. Beliefs All people are equal. God is eternal, formless, and unobserved. God is the supreme Guru, guide, and teacher. The ideal life is charity, work, and worship. Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth. Salvation is achieved through disciplined meditation and union with God. Salvation is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. There is a tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Death The body is bathed, dressed, and then cremated. The floor is washed and covered with white sheets; shoes are not worn room. Diet No restrictions Health May not cut the hair on any part of their body. Holy Issues Meet as a congregation for prayer service on six holidays Morning and night private worship Following the 10 Sikh gurus and the Holy Scriptures Pregnancy A member of the family gives a drop of honey to the newborn to give the child his character later in life. There are no rituals connected with the birth of a child. Symbols Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of religious writing. A turban is worn as a symbol of personal sovereignty and symbolizes responsibility to others. Symbolic objects include a cloth around the chest, an iron bracelet, and a wooden comb. Khanda reflects fundamental concepts of the faith. Clinical Significance Hair removal may be an issue for surgery. Spirituality - Hawaiian Hawaiian spirituality teachings reflect the daily practices of oneness and self-greatness, known loosely as the "aloha spirit." The sense of connection to oneness includes all those who have departed from the physical world. In Hawaiian spirituality, there is no death, just “changing address” from human to spirit form. Beliefs "Aumakua" are family guardians and are respected. A basic sense of community Inter-connectedness of all-natural things Death Body treated with respect. Burial is a family decision. Funerals are not attended by pregnant women. Diet After a prayer ceremony, foods consumed provided by the family. Fasting is a regular practice. No dietary restrictions Specific foods used to depend on the ceremony. Health Bad health results from not living in harmony with nature. Healthcare is interconnected with cultural and religious beliefs. Health is the connection between the body, mind, and spirit. An individual is responsible for becoming healthy. Medications acceptable for pain as long as they do not affect the state of mind. Prayers, fasting, and silence promote healing. Holy Issues Closely related to the moon and seasonal changes Daily prayers Observance occurs throughout the lunar calendar. Pregnancy Avoid wearing Lei or garlands in a full circle as this is believed to ward off unfortunate circumstances. Massaged to avoid early labor A newborn name may be delayed because the mother relies on dreams, signs, and visions to obtain a name. Rituals Ceremonies are done to connect to elements and self for value and respect. Chanting for ceremonies. Menstruating females are observers during ceremonies and have a separate responsibility. Performed with the intent of seeing, obtaining, or understanding a vision of clarity related to one’s self and others. Symbols Cleansing before the ceremony may start days to weeks prior and may include fasting and physical cleanse. Offerings are called ho’okupu, which is valued from the time it is gathered to the time it is given. Respect for male and female elders. Respect of caretakers and protectors of images. Silence is golden, and observation is key. There are no written scriptures or writings; everything is handed down by stories. Traditional ceremonial wear is expected. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Spirituality – Native American Native American religious, spiritual practices can vary widely and are based on the differing histories of individual tribes. Theology may be animistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or some combination thereof. Traditional beliefs are passed down in the form of oral histories. Health care practices are related to cultural and religious and beliefs. Ill health occurs from failure to live in harmony with nature, social, and supernatural environments. Holy Issues Related to the moon and seasons Pregnancy No special issues Rituals Prayer accompanied by the burning of cedar, sage, sweetgrass, or tobacco. Seeing and understanding a vision of clarity for oneself. Symbols A woman should not come near-sacred objects during menstrual periods. Include elder, medicine person, or spiritual leader in assisting in healing. A medicine bag is a leather pouch worn around the neck that should not be touched. No written scriptures No one other than the elder should not touch religious articles. Clinical Significance No clinical issues that inhibit healthcare. Voodoo The Voodoo religion is elaborate, steeped in secret languages, spirit-possessed dancing, and special diets that are usually eaten by the voodoo priests and priestesses. The ancestral dead are thought to walk among the living during dances. Touching the dancer during this spirit-possessed trance is considered dangerous enough to kill the offender. Beliefs All creation is considered divine and contains the power of the divine. Ewe asks for help and change. Ewe rule the world and decide the fate of everything. One God, Bondye, and other spiritual beings, called Ewe. Health Medicines such as herbal remedies and objects in religious rituals may be used for healing. Rituals Animals are sacrificed to thank the spirits. Ceremonies include animal sacrifice, drums, and dancing. Ceremonies may be held in secret. Clinical Significance Maybe mistrusting of modern medicine. Wicca Wicca is a neo-pagan, earth-centered belief. Beliefs Concern for ecological issues Consecrated items should not be removed or handled by anyone but the wearer. Multiple gods and goddesses No action occurs without significant repercussions throughout the world, eventually affecting the original actor (Law of Nature). Pre-Christian civilization worship practices The principal deity is Mother Nature. Death No restrictions on autopsy Diet Variable Health May want to contact coven to request a healing rite. Holy Issues Individual study daily Worship is called a circle or ritual. Pregnancy The ritual blessing of pregnancy is held every trimester. Ritual of blessing and naming children Rituals The full moon is a time of great magical energy. Rituals are a large part of the faith. Symbols A consecrated pendant in the form of a pentacle or pentagram is often worn, which should only be removed by the individual. Clinical Significance The care of patients requires meeting the needs of individuals and families' cultures and beliefs. Religion often provides spiritual guidance as well as an emphasis on maintaining health. Religious beliefs often affect patient attitudes and behavior. It is important for healthcare professionals to have an understanding of these issues so they can provide culturally appropriate care. It is important to remember that preservation of life overrides guidelines; in a life-threatening situation, there are usually no restrictions on medications or surgical interventions. When caring for a patient, it is important to understand why adherence or non-adherence to treatment may occur given their religious beliefs.[20][21][22] Enhancing cultural competency by providing patient-centered care is the means by which healthcare challenges are ameliorated. Efforts aimed to improve provider-level cultural enhanced care will go a long way to facilitate cross-cultural communication and respond to patient needs by tailoring healthcare. Understanding the values and reasons for special requests for healthcare will improve cultural competence and provide culturally sensitive health care that is good for the patient and their families. The culture and religion of an individual can greatly influence their perspectives about healthcare and healthcare providers. Healthcare providers need knowledge and understanding of these patients’ backgrounds and beliefs to provide culturally sensitive healthcare. Recommendations: Apologize for cultural mistakes Ask the patient and family how you can help make their experience more comfortable. Avoid being judgmental Avoid making assumptions and be patient. Avoid employees serving as interpreters for other employees. Be aware of the uniqueness of their religion and their special needs. Be respectful Observe body and facial language Recognize how values, behaviors, and beliefs may affect others Train staff about cultural competence Use medically competent and fluent interpreters with training in cultural competence. Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes Healthcare organizations need to empower their clinical staff with a sense of awareness through education and training on the world's religions and their potential impact on patient care. Provider education makes possible a respectful dialog with their patients about their religion and the impact it has on evaluation and treatment. Religion and spirituality should be incorporated into the healthcare practitioner’s armamentarium of knowledge in communicating with patients. Listening to a patient’s beliefs along with how those beliefs are tied to the patient’s health can help build and positive relationship between the health practitioner and patient. Knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices can result in decreased medical errors, earlier patient release, and reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider that results in improved healthcare delivery. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.	Personal insight replaces belief in God with the study of the laws of cause and effect, karma. Spiritual enlightenment through conscious living and meditation. Rebirth is based upon the actions of a person, and insight and the extinguishing of desire bring freedom. Three major Buddhist traditions: Mahayana, Theravada, and Tibetan. 5 Lay Vows: no intentional killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Death Avoid mind-altering medication while dying. Buddhist representatives should be notified in advance to see that the appropriate person presides over the care. Chanting and prayers. Rebirth in the next life and avoid lower lifeforms of rebirth. The state of mind at death influences rebirth, so they want to be calm and peaceful. Unexpected death may require special rituals. Diet Usually vegetarian Avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. Health Do not believe in healing through faith. Healing and recovery are by awakening to the wisdom of Buddha. Health is holistic; mental cures are important. Illness is a result of karma or the law of cause and effect, an inevitable consequence of actions in a prior life or this life. Medications are acceptable if they do not affect the state of mind. No restrictions on autopsy, blood or blood products, organ donation, or procedures. Mary Baker Eddy developed Christian Science, teaching that sickness can be healed by prayer alone, as Jesus healed. Beliefs A Bible-based Christian religion, the Christian Science church was founded to “commemorate the word and works of our master Jesus Christ which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p. 17).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/buddhist-diet	Buddhist Diet: How It Works and What to Eat	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9). Aside from these health benefits, following a plant-based or vegetarian diet may also benefit your waistline. One study demonstrated that Buddhists who followed a vegetarian diet for 11–34 years had less body fat than those who followed the diet for 5–10 years ⁠— and even less body fat than those who followed it for 3–4 years (3). Downsides Vegetarian diets that restrict the intake of meat can be deficient in certain nutrients if they aren’t planned appropriately — even if they permit eggs and dairy. Studies have found that Buddhist lacto-vegetarians had calorie intakes similar to those of non-vegetarian Catholics. However, they had higher intakes of folate, fiber, and vitamin A and consumed less protein and iron (3, 10). Consequently, they had lower levels of iron and vitamin B12. Low levels of these nutrients can cause anemia, a condition characterized by a lack of oxygen-carrying red blood cells (3, 10, 11). Aside from iron and vitamin B12, other nutrients that vegetarians may be lacking include vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and zinc (12). Pros and cons of fasting Fasting is an important practice in Buddhism. Buddhists generally fast from noon to dawn of the following day. Depending on your preferences and schedule, you may find fasting for approximately 18 hours every day to either be a pro or con of the Buddhist diet. Consuming your entire daily calorie intake before noon can not only be physically difficult but also interfere with your social and professional life. On the other hand, you may find fasting convenient and helpful for weight loss, if that’s a goal of yours. In a 4-day study in 11 overweight adults, those fasting for 18 hours had better blood sugar control and increased expression of genes involved in autophagy — a process that replaces damaged cells with healthy ones — compared with those fasting for 12 hours (13, 14). While these results are promising, longer studies are necessary to make definitive conclusions about whether the practice is superior to a standard reduced-calorie diet for weight loss and other health benefits (15, 16, 17, 18). Summary Given that the Buddhist diet consists primarily of plants, it may lack certain vitamins and minerals, particularly iron and vitamin B12. Fasting, while an important component of Buddhism, may not be for everyone.	Siddhartha Gautama, or the ”Buddha,” founded Buddhism in the 5th to 4th century B.C. in the eastern part of India. Today, it’s practiced worldwide (1). Several forms of Buddhism exist globally, including Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Each type has slightly different interpretations of Buddha’s teaching, particularly when it comes to dietary practices. Vegetarianism Five ethical teachings govern how Buddhists live. One of the teachings prohibits taking the life of any person or animal. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that you should not consume animals, as doing so would require killing. Buddhists with this interpretation usually follow a lacto-vegetarian diet. This means they consume dairy products but exclude eggs, poultry, fish, and meat from their diet. On the other hand, other Buddhists consume meat and other animal products, as long as the animals aren’t slaughtered specifically for them. Nonetheless, most dishes considered Buddhist are vegetarian, despite not all traditions requiring lay followers of Buddhism to follow this diet (2). Alcohol and other restrictions Another ethical teaching of Buddhism prohibits intoxication from alcohol given that it clouds the mind and can lead you to break other religious rules. Still, lay followers of the religion often disregard this teaching, as some traditional ceremonies incorporate alcohol. Every diet, including the Buddhist diet, has pros and cons to consider. Benefits A Buddhist diet follows a primarily plant-based approach. A plant-based diet is rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and beans, but it may also include some animal products. This diet provides important compounds, such as antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which have been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (6, 7, 8, 9).	yes
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Buddhism/	Buddhism	Buddhism Introduction Buddhism stems from the teachings of the Buddha Mahatma Gautama Shakyamuni who lived in Northern India around 500 BCE.* Buddha is not worshipped as a god but revered as an inspiration of how people can transform their lives. There are various Buddhist traditions. The ancient civilisations of India and China were profoundly affected by Buddhism and today it remains deeply fluential in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Japan and the countries of the Himalayas; as well in areas of India settled by Tibetans in exile. The Buddha's words were transmitted orally through his followers and later formulated into teachings which Buddhists call the Dharma. These teachings were eventually written down and transmitted to anyone who wished to hear them. Buddhism encourages its followers to develop wisdom and to have compassion towards all forms of life. The Buddhist path involves meditation, practice and study leading to 'Enlightenment'. This path is eightfold and defined as: right view right thought right speech right actions right livelihood right meditation right effort, and right mindfulness. There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received. Fasting If their health allows, some Buddhists fast on new moon and full moon days and on specific festival days such as Buddha's birthday, his death day, his enlightenment, his first sermon and others. Some Buddhists may also eat only one main meal a day (see diet). Washing and toilet Washing and toilet present no unusual problems for Buddhists. Ideas of modesty and dress The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or 'bardo' states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Death customs The manner of consideration for the dying will depend on the Buddhist group. If you need specific guidance about a patient's particular school of Buddhism, or want to arrange counselling from a fellow Buddhist practitioner, then you should find out from the patient or family which specific form or school of Buddhism the patient practises. You can then seek out local contact details. The most important consideration relates to the patient's state of mind at the time of death, for this wilI influence how they experience the intermediate or'bardo'states and thereafter the character of rebirth. Nearing the time of death, the state of mind should ideally be one of peace, so the patient may wish to meditate and ask for a quiet place. They may wish for a Buddha figure close by and may use a candle or incense stick. Some may ask for counselling from a fellow Buddhist, with recitation of prayers or sacred texts. Some Buddhists may express a strong wish to die at home rather than in hospital. If possible this should be granted. Healthcare staff should discuss in full the practical implications of this decision with the patient and relatives if terminal illness is diagnosed. After death, in many schools of Buddhism there is no ritual requirement and normal hospital procedures are accepted. However, some Buddhists hold strong views about how the body should be treated after death. It would be helpful to ask about such views before death occurs, to avoid unnecessary distress to relatives and friends. After death, the main Buddhist tradition is for the family to request prayers from the sangha (usually a monk, lama, nun, priest or order member) of the appropriate school of Buddhism and perform certain actions and dedicate them to the dead person. Particularly for practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism — most commonly in Britain, Tibetan Buddhism — an experienced Buddhist practitioner may perform the special Buddhist practice of Powa or ejection of consciousness. Some patients and relatives may object to a post mortem due to the belief that the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped, and interfering with internal organs may undermine the optimal dissolution of consciousness; therefore the body should not be moved for 72 hours. Buddhists can dispose of a dead body by any of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) whichever is appropriate to the country and people. Traditions vary as there are different schools of thought. However, most Buddhists are cremated and the body should be disposed of within three to seven days. Birth customs There are no unusual customs surrounding the birth of a child. Although in some countries they may ask for the umbilical cord to be salted and placed in an earthern jar. Family planning There is no established doctrine about family planning for Buddhists, although they are generally reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all methods of family planning, but with different degrees of reluctance. The worst of all is abortion or'killing a human to be'. This is seen to be harming a living sentient being. Pills and condoms are much more acceptable, though many prefer condoms. Generally all Buddhist traditions condemn abortion and euthanasia. Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation There are no religious objections to blood transfusions, but attitudes amongst Buddhists to organ transplants vary. Many will have no religious objections, since helping others is fundamental to Buddhist belief — and all consider organ donation during life an act of compassion. However, some Buddhists may decline to offer organ donation after death because they believe the mind may stay in the body for some time after the heart has stopped (see death customs).	There are five basic precepts and these are: to refrain from killing to refrain from taking that which is not given to refrain from misuse of the senses and sexual misconduct to refrain from lying or using false or harmful speech, and to refrain from taking intoxicating drink or drugs which cloud the mind. Shortly before his death at the age of 80, the Buddha brought together a group of his followers and founded a religious order — the Sangha — which has remained both the guardian and the embodiment of his teachings to this day. These three aspects — the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha — are known to all Buddhists as the Three Refuges or the Three Jewels. For a sincere Buddhist they point to the practical path of spiritual awakening. *Before the common era. This is often referred to as BC (before Christ) Attitudes to healthcare staff and illness Most Buddhists have a positive attitude towards healthcare staff and are willing to seek medical help and advice when sick. Buddhists generally are willing to take any medicine that helps. Some Buddhists will be wary, and will wish to know the effects of any drug that alters their emotional state or clarity of mind, because of the fifth precept. However, the idea of the fifth precept is to prevent people carrying out harmful acts while intoxicated, so they usually accept prescribed medication that may be intoxicating but also heals or reduces suffering. Nevertheless, some Buddhists may favour alternative health remedies or may be reluctant to accept sedating medication. Religious practices Most Buddhists practise meditation, and it may be helpful to offer access to a quiet area for this, or to allow chanting of prayers or sacred texts. Diet Many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, due to the first precept and respect for other sentient beings. Some may follow a precept that involves eating only one main meal a day. This is usually eaten before midday. However, some Buddhists are non-vegetarian as the Buddha asked his monks to eat whatever they received.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://theconversation.com/data-breaches-are-inevitable-heres-how-to-protect-yourself-anyway-109763	Data breaches are inevitable – here's how to protect yourself anyway	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options. Longer passwords don’t have to be harder to remember: They could be easily recalled phrases like “MyFirstCarWasAToyotaCorolla” or “InHighSchoolIWon9Cross-CountryRaces.” It can be daunting to think about remembering all these different usernames and passwords. Password management software can help – though choose carefully as more than one of them have beenbreached. It can be even safer – despite conventional wisdom and decades of security advice – to write them down, so long as you trust everyone who has access to your home. With these straightforward steps – and the new mindset of thinking like a target who wants to avoid getting hit – you’ll be far less worried when news breaks of the next breach of some company’s enormous data files. Bad guys may get one of your usernames, and maybe even one of your passwords – so you’ll have to change those. But they won’t have all your credentials for all your online accounts. And if you use multi-factor authentication, the bad guys might not even be able to get into the account whose credentials they just stole. Focus on what’s most important to protect, and use simple – but effective – methods to protect yourself and your information.	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://theconversation.com/data-breaches-are-inevitable-heres-how-to-protect-yourself-anyway-109763	Data breaches are inevitable – here's how to protect yourself anyway	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options. Longer passwords don’t have to be harder to remember: They could be easily recalled phrases like “MyFirstCarWasAToyotaCorolla” or “InHighSchoolIWon9Cross-CountryRaces.” It can be daunting to think about remembering all these different usernames and passwords. Password management software can help – though choose carefully as more than one of them have beenbreached. It can be even safer – despite conventional wisdom and decades of security advice – to write them down, so long as you trust everyone who has access to your home. With these straightforward steps – and the new mindset of thinking like a target who wants to avoid getting hit – you’ll be far less worried when news breaks of the next breach of some company’s enormous data files. Bad guys may get one of your usernames, and maybe even one of your passwords – so you’ll have to change those. But they won’t have all your credentials for all your online accounts. And if you use multi-factor authentication, the bad guys might not even be able to get into the account whose credentials they just stole. Focus on what’s most important to protect, and use simple – but effective – methods to protect yourself and your information.	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://theconversation.com/data-breaches-are-inevitable-heres-how-to-protect-yourself-anyway-109763	Data breaches are inevitable – here's how to protect yourself anyway	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options. Longer passwords don’t have to be harder to remember: They could be easily recalled phrases like “MyFirstCarWasAToyotaCorolla” or “InHighSchoolIWon9Cross-CountryRaces.” It can be daunting to think about remembering all these different usernames and passwords. Password management software can help – though choose carefully as more than one of them have beenbreached. It can be even safer – despite conventional wisdom and decades of security advice – to write them down, so long as you trust everyone who has access to your home. With these straightforward steps – and the new mindset of thinking like a target who wants to avoid getting hit – you’ll be far less worried when news breaks of the next breach of some company’s enormous data files. Bad guys may get one of your usernames, and maybe even one of your passwords – so you’ll have to change those. But they won’t have all your credentials for all your online accounts. And if you use multi-factor authentication, the bad guys might not even be able to get into the account whose credentials they just stole. Focus on what’s most important to protect, and use simple – but effective – methods to protect yourself and your information.	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.pcworld.com/article/1512897/if-data-breaches-are-inevitable-how-can-consumers-protect-their-identity.html	If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their ...	Norton, an industry-leading global brand in consumer Cyber Safety, offers all-in-one device protection against viruses, malware, phishing, identity theft and more. We empower people to live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently today and for generations to come. We bring award-winning products & services in cybersecurity, online privacy and identity protection to more than 50 million users, providing them with a trusted ally in a complex digital world. Sponsored If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their Identity? BrandPost Sponsored by NortonFeb 14, 2023 3:46 pm PST Image: Shutterstock 1723557016 Cybercrime risk in Australia isn’t just increasing – it’s exploding at an almost exponential rate. As reported by the ABC, recent ACCC data shows that Australians lost more than $47 million per month from January to September this year, based on reports to the government body. That’s a 90 per cent increase in losses compared with the same period last year. With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity. A lot of the time, when a person’s data is breached, it’s not enough for the cyber criminals to act on. They’ll need more, so they’ll start to look for ways to gain the additional information. Be wary of phone calls from sources you don’t recognise, emails that ask you to confirm details, and messages about attempted password changes on your accounts. These are signs that a cyber criminal may have some data and is investigating you further. 2) Read your card and account statements closely. Any unusual transactions should be flagged immediately, even if they’re so small that you think you may have simply forgotten the purchase. 3) Any changes of details. If any correspondence with the company or service has some details changed, be sure to check when those changes were made and who authorised them. 4) Talk to an Identity Restoration Specialist. To further understand the best practice approach, as well as next steps, if can be useful consulting with a specialist. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help here, by giving you access to expertise to assist you from the start of the process right through to the end. There are also some steps that you can – and should – take to resecure your data immediately. That way, if cybercriminals do compromise systems that you’re on, getting the rest of the data that they need to commit identity fraud on you is much more difficult. 1) Change all your passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA). With 2FA, consider getting a dedicated token device, or a second, pre-paid phone that you use exclusively for that purpose. “Hijacking phones” is an increasingly common strategy by cyber criminals, where they will convince your phone company to move your number to their device, and, once they’ve done that, they can circumvent all of your 2FA defences. Most people’s phone numbers can be researched online, so having a secure number that you don’t share and isn’t public for the purposes of 2FA is an extra layer of protection. 2) Remove as much personally identifiable information from social media as possible. It might be nice getting birthday messages on your Facebook wall or Twitter feed, but your date of birth is one of the most common pieces of data for verification, and if a cybercriminal has it it can be integral to getting access to your accounts. 3) Consider freezing your credit ratings. If you are seeing suspicious activity, contact the credit reporting agencies and put a freeze on your credit ratings. This can be unfrozen when you next need to apply for credit, but it will immediately prevent identity fraudsters from using your identity to take out credit in your name. 4) Consider getting new cards and other identifying documents (such as licenses and the passport). Getting these re-issued will change the numbers and security details, making the old information worthless. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help with this as part of its solution. Finally, one thing that’s often overlooked in cases of identity theft is the cost of addressing it. Above and beyond the issue of any stolen money, dealing with identity theft can involve the use of lawyers and significant lost income in the time that you spend away from work. In addition to the monitoring and support features, Norton Identity Advisor Plus also includes insurance for losses and expenses related to identity theft, helping to minimise the overall impact for victims. While the social and political pressure is on organisations to be responsible with customer data, the threat profiles out there are simply too great, and the consensus is that security is more about minimising the impact of breaches than it is preventing them. At an individual level, consumers can do their part to protect themselves by being alert, understanding how to address a data breach, and then having the right tools and solutions to support them.	With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/security-breaches-inevitable-1/	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable - Infosecurity ...	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred. Therefore, with the newer NIS legislations, tick-box compliance exercises are well and truly a thing of the past; it will become vital for organizations to raise the bar and prove their compliance in line with these regulations to improve resilience. One way organizations can check themselves is by following a set of chosen cybersecurity frameworks (CSF), such as Cyber Essentials, NIST, ISO, CIS, etc., which will help determine the security measures they have in place are, in fact, appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, in efforts to postpone damages from threats that have made it beyond the initial phases, cybersecurity teams have invested in detection capabilities to identify lateral movement, privilege escalation, anomalous behavior, command and control traffic and so on. Ultimately, these controls seek to postpone the inevitable and delay the imminent. However, what stops security breaches from growing into major incidents and becoming catastrophic incidents is an organization’s ability to respond and recover effectively. This plays not only into the tools and cybersecurity frameworks (CSFs) selected by the organization to help protect them but also into the overall security culture of the business that acknowledges the need for continually doing better when it comes to cybersecurity. Continuous Improvement for a Stronger Security Culture Response and recovery controls move the bar away from cybersecurity and towards cyber resilience. Thus, not only can cybersecurity teams seek to control the frequency of breaches impacting the organization, but they also seek to limit the magnitude. The Japanese philosophical process of Kaizen, meaning ‘the pursuit of perfection’, can be applied to how organizations manage their adversarial defense strategies. Although perfection is unattainable in cybersecurity, this should not prevent cybersecurity teams from striving for continuous improvement. In doing so, organizations can strengthen their security culture as well as achieve successful risk management and improve resiliency as a result. For better or worse, security culture and resilience are inextricably linked. However, maintaining a strong security culture within cybersecurity teams can be challenging, particularly in a sector filled with experts with diverse opinions. A CSF can minimize a security breach’s frequency and magnitude and override individual opinions. Still, this raises the critical question of why many cybersecurity teams remain hesitant to commit to CSFs in the first place. The reality of this predicament is that many organizations fail before they’ve even started because they lack investing for a unifying purpose and disregard the importance of standardized goals. Even NIST agrees that culture can inform and, to an extent, define an organization’s risk management strategy, changing the language it uses in a recent update to encompass security awareness training and culture. This is not to say that organizations should dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to security controls. Instead, organizations need to comprehend that strengthening culture with the adoption of CSFs enables a defined thinking process that is applied to each cyber risk encountered. Therefore, by applying standardized tools to standardized thinking, organizations will have a unified approach to risk assessment that offers predictable levels of certainty and assurance, providing all the safe harbors that cyber resilience offers. The best security programs will not only have decision-making and culture initiatives mapped to a best practice CSF but also the security technology that enables alignment with these frameworks as well – giving organizations the reassurance and proof they need to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate measures to limit and contain security incidents.	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.securityinfowatch.com/cybersecurity/information-security/article/12052877/preparing-for-your-companys-inevitable-data-breach	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when ...	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide. Companies continue to increase their budgets for more and better security technology and yet the breaches continue to occur more frequently and with greater impact. The primary methods for protecting information are based on securing an organization’s perimeter. Things like firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), multi-factor authentication and virtual private networks (VPN) are all based on keeping the cyber attackers out. As information technology evolves, the perimeter of an organization’s infrastructure continues to fade as a result of ever-increasing connectivity between customers, suppliers, and service providers. Add mobile devices (tablets, phones, etc.), teleworking and cloud computing to the mix and it is nearly impossible to define where the “perimeter” is. The problem with relying primarily on traditional perimeter security approaches is that many of the recent high profile breaches were not the result of failed perimeter security. Rather, the breaches were the result of attackers using compromised IDs and passwords from authorized users. Once inside, the attackers methodically explore and exploit internal vulnerabilities (which are generally not protected as well) until they gain access to the information they are seeking. Former Websense CSO Jason Clark recently stated that 80 percent of security spend is going to firewalls, IDS and anti-virus solutions, despite only being effective to 30 percent of threats. The sooner we recognize that our tried and true security techniques are failing us, the sooner we can take a fresh look at preparing for the inevitable. A shift in focus from “if” we have a breach, to “when” we have a breach will pay dividends as a result of better planning and preparation. Preparing for a Data Security Breach Studies show that the appointment of a Chief Information Security Officer and involvement of business continuity management in the incident response process decreased the costs of breaches per compromised record by $10 and $13, respectively. However, the most significant cost reductions for organizations came from having a strong security posture, which reduced the average cost of a data breach by $21 per compromised record, and an incident response plan, which shrunk the cost by $17 per compromised record. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared for a breach in data security. The starting point in planning for cyber-attacks is having an incident response plan (IRP) in place to ensure appropriate action if security is breached. An effective IRP will address preventative controls, timely detection of potential problems and rapid response to data security breaches. The key components of a well-defined IRP include: Incident Response Team – Select individuals from departments that will be involved when a data security breach occurs, such as Executive Management, Information Technology, Human Resources, Public Relations, Legal, and Operations. Identify the roles each Incident Response Team member will play and ensure they have the authority to execute. Data Classification – The organization’s incident response strategy takes into account the type of data compromised by the breach in determining its response efforts and activities. Categorize data so employees know how to handle various types of information. Levels can include “public/non-classified,” “internal use only” and “confidential.” Then, focus on protecting the most confidential data. Communication Plan – A comprehensive communication plan involves more than maintaining a current contact list of Incident Response Team members, system support personnel and external service providers. The organization should also plan what message it wants to convey and to whom it will communicate internally and externally after a security breach. Include an alternative plan when the normal notification process is pre-empted. Training – Incident preparedness training ensures that all company personnel are ready to handle data breaches before they occur. Incident Response Team members should be well versed in how to appropriately evaluate, respond and manage security incidents. Even if not directly involved in the incident management process, all staff should understand the company’s overall breach response plan so that their actions support, not hinder, breach response efforts. Testing – The IRP should be thoroughly and continuously tested in advance of an actual data breach to help identify process gaps and provide assurance that the plan will be effective in responding to incidents. The Human Element Without a doubt, employees are the weakest link in the security chain. While businesses have done an excellent job in the last decade of improving the process and technology aspects of IT security, they’ve fallen short in training their own employees to defend and protect their company information. The curious and fallible nature of humans demands that companies train and reinforce their employees on these matters. This is an area that companies cannot afford to overlook. “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) complicates matters as employees create new risk by accessing company data with their own technological devices including laptops, smartphones and tablets. Employees must be motivated to think about and understand the security risks and consequences associated with their actions. One Step Ahead It is critical that an organization be aware of the new risks and new ways to address them, allocating time regularly to exploring new threats and new controls. Even with all the proper precautions in place, data breaches will continue to happen. We will always be vulnerable, but how we prepare can help ease the pain when an attack hits. Preventative measures will minimize disruption to customers, operations and productivity, and aggressively managing through the security breach will yield a much more desirable outcome. David Barton is a Managing Director at UHY Advisors, and leads the Internal Audit, Risk and Compliance practice. He is an expert in information security and technology risk and controls. Reach him at dbarton@uhy-us.com and follow him on Twitter at @ITcontrolsfreak.	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.mcneeslaw.com/data-breaches-ready-inevitable/	Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? - McNees ...	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials, phony applications, and other clever social engineering tricks. The most important proactive step a company can take to prevent a data breach is to have a comprehensive written information security plan (WISP) in place that identifies what PII the company collects, how and where it is stored, and who has authorized access to it. The plan should be implemented on an enterprise-wide basis (throughout the company, not just in the IT department), and it should be tested periodically to identify and manage any security risks and to ensure that all employees and vendors are complying with the plan. The key elements of an Incident Response Plan. Step two is the creation of an Incident Response Plan, the go-to game plan with detailed action steps in case a data breach happens. Your response plan should be documented in writing and regularly updated and tested. Your Incident Response Plan should address key questions: Who’s on the team? Many people should be at the table, including in-house personnel and outside vendors (including some you may wish to have on retainer in case a data breach occurs). Legal counsel should provide guidance about legal requirements, including applicable notice requirements in your business’s home state and in the states and countries where your customers or clients reside. Public relations personnel, skilled in crisis management, should have draft notification letters (ready in advance of a breach) – that are honest but calm – explaining the breach and the remediation steps you are taking. IT experts must be engaged in advance, standing ready to investigate the cause of the breach and take immediate steps to contain the damage. Who’s in charge? One person must serve as project manager or team leader – the primary decision maker. The team reports to this person, who in turn reports to executives (and the board). The leader must be capable of sharing technical and legal information clearly, consistently, and without jargon. Who needs to be notified? Legal counsel will help you determine if notification is required and who needs to be notified. This will depend on whether you can determine what PII was accessed, whether it was strongly encrypted, and what was done with the PII that was exposed. Should law enforcement be contacted? This is a delicate issue, since the information involved is often proprietary. Legal advice is needed to determine whether law enforcement must be contacted. Businesses should build relationships with law enforcement agencies in advance, so you are not calling the FBI, Secret Service, FTC, state attorneys’ general, or Homeland Security out of the blue. Law enforcement agencies can sometimes advise businesses on data security practices and even assist them with table-top exercises to look for problems and help plan a response to a data breach. What recourse will be offered to victims? After breaches, most companies offer customers some form of remediation, often free credit monitoring. These steps will be determined once your response team determines what PII was accessed, what harm has been caused by the breach, and whether the data was just viewed or duplicated. What’s the budget? Incident Response Plans often rely heavily on outside professionals and vendors to perform the legal analysis, technical and forensic investigations, external and internal communications, credit monitoring, and other steps the plan provides for – all of which is expensive. Increasingly, businesses are purchasing cyber insurance to cover the costs of data breaches. Don’t wait for an emergency! Plan for the inevitable. After a data breach occurs is not the time to be writing a plan and drafting letters. The Incident Response Plan is essential to being ‘crisis-ready’. Bringing on an experienced firm that can help you plan for and implement practical solutions to privacy threats and breaches and advise your business on protecting data is critical. Solutions vary by industry, due to state and federal laws and regulations, but with diligent guidance, businesses can do their utmost to protect their reputations and their customers from data breaches. RELATED PROFESSIONALS Tel: Email: Related Practices Attorney Email Disclaimer If you are not a current client of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, before submitting any information, please read and accept the following terms: Email addresses of our attorneys are not provided as a means for prospective clients to contact our firm or to submit information to us. By clicking "I ACCEPT," you acknowledge that McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already have agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we can represent a party in a manner adverse to you even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in that matter. ALFA International McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is a member of the ALFA International legal network. The ALFA network is comprised of 125 law firms with nearly 300 offices throughout the United States and around the World. The 85 U.S. firms and 40 international members employ over 8,000 lawyers and 10,000 legal support staff. As an ALFA member, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is able to draw upon the vast resources of the network’s membership to better serve its clients. ALFA affiliation also facilitates and expedites the retention of outstanding counsel in unfamiliar jurisdictions, another significant client benefit. More information about the ALFA legal network can be found at www.alfainternational.com. Best Places to Work in PA This survey, study and award program is intended to identify the best places of employment in Pennsylvania for the benefit of the Commonwealth, its workforce and businesses. The "100 Best Places to Work in PA" program is made up of 50 medium-sized companies (50 to 250 employees) and 50 large-sized companies (251+ employees). After a two-part assessment process designed to gather detailed data about each company, ModernThink, LLC, a workplace excellence consulting firm, determines what companies make the final list. Best Companies coordinates the process and ModernThink evaluates all surveys submitted by companies. McNees has been named to the list of Best Places to Work in PA since 2006.	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials,	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.pcworld.com/article/1512897/if-data-breaches-are-inevitable-how-can-consumers-protect-their-identity.html	If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their ...	Norton, an industry-leading global brand in consumer Cyber Safety, offers all-in-one device protection against viruses, malware, phishing, identity theft and more. We empower people to live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently today and for generations to come. We bring award-winning products & services in cybersecurity, online privacy and identity protection to more than 50 million users, providing them with a trusted ally in a complex digital world. Sponsored If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their Identity? BrandPost Sponsored by NortonFeb 14, 2023 3:46 pm PST Image: Shutterstock 1723557016 Cybercrime risk in Australia isn’t just increasing – it’s exploding at an almost exponential rate. As reported by the ABC, recent ACCC data shows that Australians lost more than $47 million per month from January to September this year, based on reports to the government body. That’s a 90 per cent increase in losses compared with the same period last year. With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity. A lot of the time, when a person’s data is breached, it’s not enough for the cyber criminals to act on. They’ll need more, so they’ll start to look for ways to gain the additional information. Be wary of phone calls from sources you don’t recognise, emails that ask you to confirm details, and messages about attempted password changes on your accounts. These are signs that a cyber criminal may have some data and is investigating you further. 2) Read your card and account statements closely. Any unusual transactions should be flagged immediately, even if they’re so small that you think you may have simply forgotten the purchase. 3) Any changes of details. If any correspondence with the company or service has some details changed, be sure to check when those changes were made and who authorised them. 4) Talk to an Identity Restoration Specialist. To further understand the best practice approach, as well as next steps, if can be useful consulting with a specialist. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help here, by giving you access to expertise to assist you from the start of the process right through to the end. There are also some steps that you can – and should – take to resecure your data immediately. That way, if cybercriminals do compromise systems that you’re on, getting the rest of the data that they need to commit identity fraud on you is much more difficult. 1) Change all your passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA). With 2FA, consider getting a dedicated token device, or a second, pre-paid phone that you use exclusively for that purpose. “Hijacking phones” is an increasingly common strategy by cyber criminals, where they will convince your phone company to move your number to their device, and, once they’ve done that, they can circumvent all of your 2FA defences. Most people’s phone numbers can be researched online, so having a secure number that you don’t share and isn’t public for the purposes of 2FA is an extra layer of protection. 2) Remove as much personally identifiable information from social media as possible. It might be nice getting birthday messages on your Facebook wall or Twitter feed, but your date of birth is one of the most common pieces of data for verification, and if a cybercriminal has it it can be integral to getting access to your accounts. 3) Consider freezing your credit ratings. If you are seeing suspicious activity, contact the credit reporting agencies and put a freeze on your credit ratings. This can be unfrozen when you next need to apply for credit, but it will immediately prevent identity fraudsters from using your identity to take out credit in your name. 4) Consider getting new cards and other identifying documents (such as licenses and the passport). Getting these re-issued will change the numbers and security details, making the old information worthless. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help with this as part of its solution. Finally, one thing that’s often overlooked in cases of identity theft is the cost of addressing it. Above and beyond the issue of any stolen money, dealing with identity theft can involve the use of lawyers and significant lost income in the time that you spend away from work. In addition to the monitoring and support features, Norton Identity Advisor Plus also includes insurance for losses and expenses related to identity theft, helping to minimise the overall impact for victims. While the social and political pressure is on organisations to be responsible with customer data, the threat profiles out there are simply too great, and the consensus is that security is more about minimising the impact of breaches than it is preventing them. At an individual level, consumers can do their part to protect themselves by being alert, understanding how to address a data breach, and then having the right tools and solutions to support them.	With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.pcworld.com/article/1512897/if-data-breaches-are-inevitable-how-can-consumers-protect-their-identity.html	If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their ...	Norton, an industry-leading global brand in consumer Cyber Safety, offers all-in-one device protection against viruses, malware, phishing, identity theft and more. We empower people to live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently today and for generations to come. We bring award-winning products & services in cybersecurity, online privacy and identity protection to more than 50 million users, providing them with a trusted ally in a complex digital world. Sponsored If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their Identity? BrandPost Sponsored by NortonFeb 14, 2023 3:46 pm PST Image: Shutterstock 1723557016 Cybercrime risk in Australia isn’t just increasing – it’s exploding at an almost exponential rate. As reported by the ABC, recent ACCC data shows that Australians lost more than $47 million per month from January to September this year, based on reports to the government body. That’s a 90 per cent increase in losses compared with the same period last year. With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity. A lot of the time, when a person’s data is breached, it’s not enough for the cyber criminals to act on. They’ll need more, so they’ll start to look for ways to gain the additional information. Be wary of phone calls from sources you don’t recognise, emails that ask you to confirm details, and messages about attempted password changes on your accounts. These are signs that a cyber criminal may have some data and is investigating you further. 2) Read your card and account statements closely. Any unusual transactions should be flagged immediately, even if they’re so small that you think you may have simply forgotten the purchase. 3) Any changes of details. If any correspondence with the company or service has some details changed, be sure to check when those changes were made and who authorised them. 4) Talk to an Identity Restoration Specialist. To further understand the best practice approach, as well as next steps, if can be useful consulting with a specialist. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help here, by giving you access to expertise to assist you from the start of the process right through to the end. There are also some steps that you can – and should – take to resecure your data immediately. That way, if cybercriminals do compromise systems that you’re on, getting the rest of the data that they need to commit identity fraud on you is much more difficult. 1) Change all your passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA). With 2FA, consider getting a dedicated token device, or a second, pre-paid phone that you use exclusively for that purpose. “Hijacking phones” is an increasingly common strategy by cyber criminals, where they will convince your phone company to move your number to their device, and, once they’ve done that, they can circumvent all of your 2FA defences. Most people’s phone numbers can be researched online, so having a secure number that you don’t share and isn’t public for the purposes of 2FA is an extra layer of protection. 2) Remove as much personally identifiable information from social media as possible. It might be nice getting birthday messages on your Facebook wall or Twitter feed, but your date of birth is one of the most common pieces of data for verification, and if a cybercriminal has it it can be integral to getting access to your accounts. 3) Consider freezing your credit ratings. If you are seeing suspicious activity, contact the credit reporting agencies and put a freeze on your credit ratings. This can be unfrozen when you next need to apply for credit, but it will immediately prevent identity fraudsters from using your identity to take out credit in your name. 4) Consider getting new cards and other identifying documents (such as licenses and the passport). Getting these re-issued will change the numbers and security details, making the old information worthless. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help with this as part of its solution. Finally, one thing that’s often overlooked in cases of identity theft is the cost of addressing it. Above and beyond the issue of any stolen money, dealing with identity theft can involve the use of lawyers and significant lost income in the time that you spend away from work. In addition to the monitoring and support features, Norton Identity Advisor Plus also includes insurance for losses and expenses related to identity theft, helping to minimise the overall impact for victims. While the social and political pressure is on organisations to be responsible with customer data, the threat profiles out there are simply too great, and the consensus is that security is more about minimising the impact of breaches than it is preventing them. At an individual level, consumers can do their part to protect themselves by being alert, understanding how to address a data breach, and then having the right tools and solutions to support them.	With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/security-breaches-inevitable-1/	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable - Infosecurity ...	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred. Therefore, with the newer NIS legislations, tick-box compliance exercises are well and truly a thing of the past; it will become vital for organizations to raise the bar and prove their compliance in line with these regulations to improve resilience. One way organizations can check themselves is by following a set of chosen cybersecurity frameworks (CSF), such as Cyber Essentials, NIST, ISO, CIS, etc., which will help determine the security measures they have in place are, in fact, appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, in efforts to postpone damages from threats that have made it beyond the initial phases, cybersecurity teams have invested in detection capabilities to identify lateral movement, privilege escalation, anomalous behavior, command and control traffic and so on. Ultimately, these controls seek to postpone the inevitable and delay the imminent. However, what stops security breaches from growing into major incidents and becoming catastrophic incidents is an organization’s ability to respond and recover effectively. This plays not only into the tools and cybersecurity frameworks (CSFs) selected by the organization to help protect them but also into the overall security culture of the business that acknowledges the need for continually doing better when it comes to cybersecurity. Continuous Improvement for a Stronger Security Culture Response and recovery controls move the bar away from cybersecurity and towards cyber resilience. Thus, not only can cybersecurity teams seek to control the frequency of breaches impacting the organization, but they also seek to limit the magnitude. The Japanese philosophical process of Kaizen, meaning ‘the pursuit of perfection’, can be applied to how organizations manage their adversarial defense strategies. Although perfection is unattainable in cybersecurity, this should not prevent cybersecurity teams from striving for continuous improvement. In doing so, organizations can strengthen their security culture as well as achieve successful risk management and improve resiliency as a result. For better or worse, security culture and resilience are inextricably linked. However, maintaining a strong security culture within cybersecurity teams can be challenging, particularly in a sector filled with experts with diverse opinions. A CSF can minimize a security breach’s frequency and magnitude and override individual opinions. Still, this raises the critical question of why many cybersecurity teams remain hesitant to commit to CSFs in the first place. The reality of this predicament is that many organizations fail before they’ve even started because they lack investing for a unifying purpose and disregard the importance of standardized goals. Even NIST agrees that culture can inform and, to an extent, define an organization’s risk management strategy, changing the language it uses in a recent update to encompass security awareness training and culture. This is not to say that organizations should dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to security controls. Instead, organizations need to comprehend that strengthening culture with the adoption of CSFs enables a defined thinking process that is applied to each cyber risk encountered. Therefore, by applying standardized tools to standardized thinking, organizations will have a unified approach to risk assessment that offers predictable levels of certainty and assurance, providing all the safe harbors that cyber resilience offers. The best security programs will not only have decision-making and culture initiatives mapped to a best practice CSF but also the security technology that enables alignment with these frameworks as well – giving organizations the reassurance and proof they need to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate measures to limit and contain security incidents.	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/security-breaches-inevitable-1/	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable - Infosecurity ...	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred. Therefore, with the newer NIS legislations, tick-box compliance exercises are well and truly a thing of the past; it will become vital for organizations to raise the bar and prove their compliance in line with these regulations to improve resilience. One way organizations can check themselves is by following a set of chosen cybersecurity frameworks (CSF), such as Cyber Essentials, NIST, ISO, CIS, etc., which will help determine the security measures they have in place are, in fact, appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, in efforts to postpone damages from threats that have made it beyond the initial phases, cybersecurity teams have invested in detection capabilities to identify lateral movement, privilege escalation, anomalous behavior, command and control traffic and so on. Ultimately, these controls seek to postpone the inevitable and delay the imminent. However, what stops security breaches from growing into major incidents and becoming catastrophic incidents is an organization’s ability to respond and recover effectively. This plays not only into the tools and cybersecurity frameworks (CSFs) selected by the organization to help protect them but also into the overall security culture of the business that acknowledges the need for continually doing better when it comes to cybersecurity. Continuous Improvement for a Stronger Security Culture Response and recovery controls move the bar away from cybersecurity and towards cyber resilience. Thus, not only can cybersecurity teams seek to control the frequency of breaches impacting the organization, but they also seek to limit the magnitude. The Japanese philosophical process of Kaizen, meaning ‘the pursuit of perfection’, can be applied to how organizations manage their adversarial defense strategies. Although perfection is unattainable in cybersecurity, this should not prevent cybersecurity teams from striving for continuous improvement. In doing so, organizations can strengthen their security culture as well as achieve successful risk management and improve resiliency as a result. For better or worse, security culture and resilience are inextricably linked. However, maintaining a strong security culture within cybersecurity teams can be challenging, particularly in a sector filled with experts with diverse opinions. A CSF can minimize a security breach’s frequency and magnitude and override individual opinions. Still, this raises the critical question of why many cybersecurity teams remain hesitant to commit to CSFs in the first place. The reality of this predicament is that many organizations fail before they’ve even started because they lack investing for a unifying purpose and disregard the importance of standardized goals. Even NIST agrees that culture can inform and, to an extent, define an organization’s risk management strategy, changing the language it uses in a recent update to encompass security awareness training and culture. This is not to say that organizations should dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to security controls. Instead, organizations need to comprehend that strengthening culture with the adoption of CSFs enables a defined thinking process that is applied to each cyber risk encountered. Therefore, by applying standardized tools to standardized thinking, organizations will have a unified approach to risk assessment that offers predictable levels of certainty and assurance, providing all the safe harbors that cyber resilience offers. The best security programs will not only have decision-making and culture initiatives mapped to a best practice CSF but also the security technology that enables alignment with these frameworks as well – giving organizations the reassurance and proof they need to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate measures to limit and contain security incidents.	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.securityinfowatch.com/cybersecurity/information-security/article/12052877/preparing-for-your-companys-inevitable-data-breach	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when ...	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide. Companies continue to increase their budgets for more and better security technology and yet the breaches continue to occur more frequently and with greater impact. The primary methods for protecting information are based on securing an organization’s perimeter. Things like firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), multi-factor authentication and virtual private networks (VPN) are all based on keeping the cyber attackers out. As information technology evolves, the perimeter of an organization’s infrastructure continues to fade as a result of ever-increasing connectivity between customers, suppliers, and service providers. Add mobile devices (tablets, phones, etc.), teleworking and cloud computing to the mix and it is nearly impossible to define where the “perimeter” is. The problem with relying primarily on traditional perimeter security approaches is that many of the recent high profile breaches were not the result of failed perimeter security. Rather, the breaches were the result of attackers using compromised IDs and passwords from authorized users. Once inside, the attackers methodically explore and exploit internal vulnerabilities (which are generally not protected as well) until they gain access to the information they are seeking. Former Websense CSO Jason Clark recently stated that 80 percent of security spend is going to firewalls, IDS and anti-virus solutions, despite only being effective to 30 percent of threats. The sooner we recognize that our tried and true security techniques are failing us, the sooner we can take a fresh look at preparing for the inevitable. A shift in focus from “if” we have a breach, to “when” we have a breach will pay dividends as a result of better planning and preparation. Preparing for a Data Security Breach Studies show that the appointment of a Chief Information Security Officer and involvement of business continuity management in the incident response process decreased the costs of breaches per compromised record by $10 and $13, respectively. However, the most significant cost reductions for organizations came from having a strong security posture, which reduced the average cost of a data breach by $21 per compromised record, and an incident response plan, which shrunk the cost by $17 per compromised record. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared for a breach in data security. The starting point in planning for cyber-attacks is having an incident response plan (IRP) in place to ensure appropriate action if security is breached. An effective IRP will address preventative controls, timely detection of potential problems and rapid response to data security breaches. The key components of a well-defined IRP include: Incident Response Team – Select individuals from departments that will be involved when a data security breach occurs, such as Executive Management, Information Technology, Human Resources, Public Relations, Legal, and Operations. Identify the roles each Incident Response Team member will play and ensure they have the authority to execute. Data Classification – The organization’s incident response strategy takes into account the type of data compromised by the breach in determining its response efforts and activities. Categorize data so employees know how to handle various types of information. Levels can include “public/non-classified,” “internal use only” and “confidential.” Then, focus on protecting the most confidential data. Communication Plan – A comprehensive communication plan involves more than maintaining a current contact list of Incident Response Team members, system support personnel and external service providers. The organization should also plan what message it wants to convey and to whom it will communicate internally and externally after a security breach. Include an alternative plan when the normal notification process is pre-empted. Training – Incident preparedness training ensures that all company personnel are ready to handle data breaches before they occur. Incident Response Team members should be well versed in how to appropriately evaluate, respond and manage security incidents. Even if not directly involved in the incident management process, all staff should understand the company’s overall breach response plan so that their actions support, not hinder, breach response efforts. Testing – The IRP should be thoroughly and continuously tested in advance of an actual data breach to help identify process gaps and provide assurance that the plan will be effective in responding to incidents. The Human Element Without a doubt, employees are the weakest link in the security chain. While businesses have done an excellent job in the last decade of improving the process and technology aspects of IT security, they’ve fallen short in training their own employees to defend and protect their company information. The curious and fallible nature of humans demands that companies train and reinforce their employees on these matters. This is an area that companies cannot afford to overlook. “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) complicates matters as employees create new risk by accessing company data with their own technological devices including laptops, smartphones and tablets. Employees must be motivated to think about and understand the security risks and consequences associated with their actions. One Step Ahead It is critical that an organization be aware of the new risks and new ways to address them, allocating time regularly to exploring new threats and new controls. Even with all the proper precautions in place, data breaches will continue to happen. We will always be vulnerable, but how we prepare can help ease the pain when an attack hits. Preventative measures will minimize disruption to customers, operations and productivity, and aggressively managing through the security breach will yield a much more desirable outcome. David Barton is a Managing Director at UHY Advisors, and leads the Internal Audit, Risk and Compliance practice. He is an expert in information security and technology risk and controls. Reach him at dbarton@uhy-us.com and follow him on Twitter at @ITcontrolsfreak.	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.securityinfowatch.com/cybersecurity/information-security/article/12052877/preparing-for-your-companys-inevitable-data-breach	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when ...	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide. Companies continue to increase their budgets for more and better security technology and yet the breaches continue to occur more frequently and with greater impact. The primary methods for protecting information are based on securing an organization’s perimeter. Things like firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), multi-factor authentication and virtual private networks (VPN) are all based on keeping the cyber attackers out. As information technology evolves, the perimeter of an organization’s infrastructure continues to fade as a result of ever-increasing connectivity between customers, suppliers, and service providers. Add mobile devices (tablets, phones, etc.), teleworking and cloud computing to the mix and it is nearly impossible to define where the “perimeter” is. The problem with relying primarily on traditional perimeter security approaches is that many of the recent high profile breaches were not the result of failed perimeter security. Rather, the breaches were the result of attackers using compromised IDs and passwords from authorized users. Once inside, the attackers methodically explore and exploit internal vulnerabilities (which are generally not protected as well) until they gain access to the information they are seeking. Former Websense CSO Jason Clark recently stated that 80 percent of security spend is going to firewalls, IDS and anti-virus solutions, despite only being effective to 30 percent of threats. The sooner we recognize that our tried and true security techniques are failing us, the sooner we can take a fresh look at preparing for the inevitable. A shift in focus from “if” we have a breach, to “when” we have a breach will pay dividends as a result of better planning and preparation. Preparing for a Data Security Breach Studies show that the appointment of a Chief Information Security Officer and involvement of business continuity management in the incident response process decreased the costs of breaches per compromised record by $10 and $13, respectively. However, the most significant cost reductions for organizations came from having a strong security posture, which reduced the average cost of a data breach by $21 per compromised record, and an incident response plan, which shrunk the cost by $17 per compromised record. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared for a breach in data security. The starting point in planning for cyber-attacks is having an incident response plan (IRP) in place to ensure appropriate action if security is breached. An effective IRP will address preventative controls, timely detection of potential problems and rapid response to data security breaches. The key components of a well-defined IRP include: Incident Response Team – Select individuals from departments that will be involved when a data security breach occurs, such as Executive Management, Information Technology, Human Resources, Public Relations, Legal, and Operations. Identify the roles each Incident Response Team member will play and ensure they have the authority to execute. Data Classification – The organization’s incident response strategy takes into account the type of data compromised by the breach in determining its response efforts and activities. Categorize data so employees know how to handle various types of information. Levels can include “public/non-classified,” “internal use only” and “confidential.” Then, focus on protecting the most confidential data. Communication Plan – A comprehensive communication plan involves more than maintaining a current contact list of Incident Response Team members, system support personnel and external service providers. The organization should also plan what message it wants to convey and to whom it will communicate internally and externally after a security breach. Include an alternative plan when the normal notification process is pre-empted. Training – Incident preparedness training ensures that all company personnel are ready to handle data breaches before they occur. Incident Response Team members should be well versed in how to appropriately evaluate, respond and manage security incidents. Even if not directly involved in the incident management process, all staff should understand the company’s overall breach response plan so that their actions support, not hinder, breach response efforts. Testing – The IRP should be thoroughly and continuously tested in advance of an actual data breach to help identify process gaps and provide assurance that the plan will be effective in responding to incidents. The Human Element Without a doubt, employees are the weakest link in the security chain. While businesses have done an excellent job in the last decade of improving the process and technology aspects of IT security, they’ve fallen short in training their own employees to defend and protect their company information. The curious and fallible nature of humans demands that companies train and reinforce their employees on these matters. This is an area that companies cannot afford to overlook. “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) complicates matters as employees create new risk by accessing company data with their own technological devices including laptops, smartphones and tablets. Employees must be motivated to think about and understand the security risks and consequences associated with their actions. One Step Ahead It is critical that an organization be aware of the new risks and new ways to address them, allocating time regularly to exploring new threats and new controls. Even with all the proper precautions in place, data breaches will continue to happen. We will always be vulnerable, but how we prepare can help ease the pain when an attack hits. Preventative measures will minimize disruption to customers, operations and productivity, and aggressively managing through the security breach will yield a much more desirable outcome. David Barton is a Managing Director at UHY Advisors, and leads the Internal Audit, Risk and Compliance practice. He is an expert in information security and technology risk and controls. Reach him at dbarton@uhy-us.com and follow him on Twitter at @ITcontrolsfreak.	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide.	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.mcneeslaw.com/data-breaches-ready-inevitable/	Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? - McNees ...	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials, phony applications, and other clever social engineering tricks. The most important proactive step a company can take to prevent a data breach is to have a comprehensive written information security plan (WISP) in place that identifies what PII the company collects, how and where it is stored, and who has authorized access to it. The plan should be implemented on an enterprise-wide basis (throughout the company, not just in the IT department), and it should be tested periodically to identify and manage any security risks and to ensure that all employees and vendors are complying with the plan. The key elements of an Incident Response Plan. Step two is the creation of an Incident Response Plan, the go-to game plan with detailed action steps in case a data breach happens. Your response plan should be documented in writing and regularly updated and tested. Your Incident Response Plan should address key questions: Who’s on the team? Many people should be at the table, including in-house personnel and outside vendors (including some you may wish to have on retainer in case a data breach occurs). Legal counsel should provide guidance about legal requirements, including applicable notice requirements in your business’s home state and in the states and countries where your customers or clients reside. Public relations personnel, skilled in crisis management, should have draft notification letters (ready in advance of a breach) – that are honest but calm – explaining the breach and the remediation steps you are taking. IT experts must be engaged in advance, standing ready to investigate the cause of the breach and take immediate steps to contain the damage. Who’s in charge? One person must serve as project manager or team leader – the primary decision maker. The team reports to this person, who in turn reports to executives (and the board). The leader must be capable of sharing technical and legal information clearly, consistently, and without jargon. Who needs to be notified? Legal counsel will help you determine if notification is required and who needs to be notified. This will depend on whether you can determine what PII was accessed, whether it was strongly encrypted, and what was done with the PII that was exposed. Should law enforcement be contacted? This is a delicate issue, since the information involved is often proprietary. Legal advice is needed to determine whether law enforcement must be contacted. Businesses should build relationships with law enforcement agencies in advance, so you are not calling the FBI, Secret Service, FTC, state attorneys’ general, or Homeland Security out of the blue. Law enforcement agencies can sometimes advise businesses on data security practices and even assist them with table-top exercises to look for problems and help plan a response to a data breach. What recourse will be offered to victims? After breaches, most companies offer customers some form of remediation, often free credit monitoring. These steps will be determined once your response team determines what PII was accessed, what harm has been caused by the breach, and whether the data was just viewed or duplicated. What’s the budget? Incident Response Plans often rely heavily on outside professionals and vendors to perform the legal analysis, technical and forensic investigations, external and internal communications, credit monitoring, and other steps the plan provides for – all of which is expensive. Increasingly, businesses are purchasing cyber insurance to cover the costs of data breaches. Don’t wait for an emergency! Plan for the inevitable. After a data breach occurs is not the time to be writing a plan and drafting letters. The Incident Response Plan is essential to being ‘crisis-ready’. Bringing on an experienced firm that can help you plan for and implement practical solutions to privacy threats and breaches and advise your business on protecting data is critical. Solutions vary by industry, due to state and federal laws and regulations, but with diligent guidance, businesses can do their utmost to protect their reputations and their customers from data breaches. RELATED PROFESSIONALS Tel: Email: Related Practices Attorney Email Disclaimer If you are not a current client of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, before submitting any information, please read and accept the following terms: Email addresses of our attorneys are not provided as a means for prospective clients to contact our firm or to submit information to us. By clicking "I ACCEPT," you acknowledge that McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already have agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we can represent a party in a manner adverse to you even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in that matter. ALFA International McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is a member of the ALFA International legal network. The ALFA network is comprised of 125 law firms with nearly 300 offices throughout the United States and around the World. The 85 U.S. firms and 40 international members employ over 8,000 lawyers and 10,000 legal support staff. As an ALFA member, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is able to draw upon the vast resources of the network’s membership to better serve its clients. ALFA affiliation also facilitates and expedites the retention of outstanding counsel in unfamiliar jurisdictions, another significant client benefit. More information about the ALFA legal network can be found at www.alfainternational.com. Best Places to Work in PA This survey, study and award program is intended to identify the best places of employment in Pennsylvania for the benefit of the Commonwealth, its workforce and businesses. The "100 Best Places to Work in PA" program is made up of 50 medium-sized companies (50 to 250 employees) and 50 large-sized companies (251+ employees). After a two-part assessment process designed to gather detailed data about each company, ModernThink, LLC, a workplace excellence consulting firm, determines what companies make the final list. Best Companies coordinates the process and ModernThink evaluates all surveys submitted by companies. McNees has been named to the list of Best Places to Work in PA since 2006.	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials,	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/breaches-are-inevitable-so-embrace-the-chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos	Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos If you consider cybersecurity breaches to be the "new normal," you're in good company. A recent survey conducted by Kaspersky Lab revealed that 86% of 250 top security officials who participated believe that cybersecurity breaches are inevitable. The complexity of today's cyber environments guarantees that every company is on a path to a breach. Cloud adoption that leads to hybrid environments spread across different locations and teams, the use of containers, a permeable perimeter — all these factors broaden the attack surface and challenge our existing approach to managing threats. Shipbuilders Expect Failure and Plan for It, and You Should Too The security industry clearly could be doing more regarding breach management. Though we spend billions of dollars and likely prevent lots of bad stuff, the number of high-profile breaches causing devastating damage is constantly increasing and, with it, the exponential growth of exposed records and sensitive customer data. And why? Because unlike other industries, we fail to plan for failure. Take shipbuilding, for example. Shipbuilders have engineered their systems for failure by, among other things, segmenting the hulls of their ships and limiting access to the ship's engine room to contain damage if a breach happens. It's been done this way since the 15th century, and it's still being done in today's modern vessels. The lessons learned from shipbuilders can be applied to modern IT security. Here are a few security principles that reflect this: Shipbuilders assume that at some point the ship will suffer a leak, and so they create hulls that prevent a single leak from sinking the entire ship. In the same way, assume a breach in your corporate environment and segment your network. This way, if there's malware in the testing environment, other sensitive environments such as development, production, and the DMZ won't be affected. Lack of segmentation allows attackers to move with ease to critical areas once they make it through the perimeter, much the same way water would flow throughout the entire ship if the hull wasn't segmented. Staff responsible for maintaining the ship's hull monitor for leaks or weak points patch regularly to keep precious cargo and crew safe. In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data." Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching, had network segmentation been deployed, affected organizations would have been able to enforce security policies and prevent the worm from moving laterally across their environments. Anticipate the Breach. Patch. Segment. With threats at the scale of Equifax and WannaCry, it would be easy to assume that the attackers used a complex attack pattern or took advantage of a new vulnerability that flew under the radar. Yet these attacks were made possible by unpatched systems and the lack of network segmentation. By embracing the chaos to come and anticipating attacks that can be stopped by network segmentation and better visibility into the data center, businesses are less likely to be sunk by a breach and can ensure the longevity of their company.	In the same way, modern security teams must be vigilant about monitoring and patching to prevent proverbial cracks in the perimeter and potentially bigger problems. The ship's most sensitive tools are hosted in the engine room. To protect your crown jewels, fence your critical IT assets to make sure they are not damaged in case of a network breach. Consider ships that staff their lookouts 24/7 in order to keep a watch on everything, and direct course correction if necessary. Similarly, think about maintaining complete visibility throughout the entire data center down to the application level. Gaining visibility of an increasingly complex and dynamic ecosystem is a must before you can "change course" or put any policy or controls into place. Keeping the crew from accessing the ship's bridge is an important safety measure. Likewise, in the cyber world we advise that you base your policy on user identity to ensure that your employees, contractors, and remote users access only what they're entitled to. The result is greater security for your business-critical applications that can be accessed only by authorized users. In the past two years alone, there have been several examples that point to a lack of visibility and segmentation as the No. 1 cause for large-scale breaches. With a breach of the scale of Equifax — one of the largest cyberattacks of all time, affecting 148 million consumers in 2017 — the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on the breach mentions "the company's failure to implement basic security protocols, including file integrity monitoring and network segmentation" as an insight into how Equifax "allowed attackers to access and remove large amounts of data. " Equifax's lack of a well-implemented segmentation strategy allowed attackers to gain access to dozens of databases that contained personally identifiable information in an attack that lasted over 75 days. WannaCry, the largest malware infection in history, could have also been better contained if companies had patched their systems against the MS10-010 vulnerability that allowed its exploitation. Recall, however, that with WannaCry, organizations didn't realize they had a vulnerability that needed patching or were unable to do so. Even without patching,	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.mcneeslaw.com/data-breaches-ready-inevitable/	Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? - McNees ...	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials, phony applications, and other clever social engineering tricks. The most important proactive step a company can take to prevent a data breach is to have a comprehensive written information security plan (WISP) in place that identifies what PII the company collects, how and where it is stored, and who has authorized access to it. The plan should be implemented on an enterprise-wide basis (throughout the company, not just in the IT department), and it should be tested periodically to identify and manage any security risks and to ensure that all employees and vendors are complying with the plan. The key elements of an Incident Response Plan. Step two is the creation of an Incident Response Plan, the go-to game plan with detailed action steps in case a data breach happens. Your response plan should be documented in writing and regularly updated and tested. Your Incident Response Plan should address key questions: Who’s on the team? Many people should be at the table, including in-house personnel and outside vendors (including some you may wish to have on retainer in case a data breach occurs). Legal counsel should provide guidance about legal requirements, including applicable notice requirements in your business’s home state and in the states and countries where your customers or clients reside. Public relations personnel, skilled in crisis management, should have draft notification letters (ready in advance of a breach) – that are honest but calm – explaining the breach and the remediation steps you are taking. IT experts must be engaged in advance, standing ready to investigate the cause of the breach and take immediate steps to contain the damage. Who’s in charge? One person must serve as project manager or team leader – the primary decision maker. The team reports to this person, who in turn reports to executives (and the board). The leader must be capable of sharing technical and legal information clearly, consistently, and without jargon. Who needs to be notified? Legal counsel will help you determine if notification is required and who needs to be notified. This will depend on whether you can determine what PII was accessed, whether it was strongly encrypted, and what was done with the PII that was exposed. Should law enforcement be contacted? This is a delicate issue, since the information involved is often proprietary. Legal advice is needed to determine whether law enforcement must be contacted. Businesses should build relationships with law enforcement agencies in advance, so you are not calling the FBI, Secret Service, FTC, state attorneys’ general, or Homeland Security out of the blue. Law enforcement agencies can sometimes advise businesses on data security practices and even assist them with table-top exercises to look for problems and help plan a response to a data breach. What recourse will be offered to victims? After breaches, most companies offer customers some form of remediation, often free credit monitoring. These steps will be determined once your response team determines what PII was accessed, what harm has been caused by the breach, and whether the data was just viewed or duplicated. What’s the budget? Incident Response Plans often rely heavily on outside professionals and vendors to perform the legal analysis, technical and forensic investigations, external and internal communications, credit monitoring, and other steps the plan provides for – all of which is expensive. Increasingly, businesses are purchasing cyber insurance to cover the costs of data breaches. Don’t wait for an emergency! Plan for the inevitable. After a data breach occurs is not the time to be writing a plan and drafting letters. The Incident Response Plan is essential to being ‘crisis-ready’. Bringing on an experienced firm that can help you plan for and implement practical solutions to privacy threats and breaches and advise your business on protecting data is critical. Solutions vary by industry, due to state and federal laws and regulations, but with diligent guidance, businesses can do their utmost to protect their reputations and their customers from data breaches. RELATED PROFESSIONALS Tel: Email: Related Practices Attorney Email Disclaimer If you are not a current client of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, before submitting any information, please read and accept the following terms: Email addresses of our attorneys are not provided as a means for prospective clients to contact our firm or to submit information to us. By clicking "I ACCEPT," you acknowledge that McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already have agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we can represent a party in a manner adverse to you even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in that matter. ALFA International McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is a member of the ALFA International legal network. The ALFA network is comprised of 125 law firms with nearly 300 offices throughout the United States and around the World. The 85 U.S. firms and 40 international members employ over 8,000 lawyers and 10,000 legal support staff. As an ALFA member, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is able to draw upon the vast resources of the network’s membership to better serve its clients. ALFA affiliation also facilitates and expedites the retention of outstanding counsel in unfamiliar jurisdictions, another significant client benefit. More information about the ALFA legal network can be found at www.alfainternational.com. Best Places to Work in PA This survey, study and award program is intended to identify the best places of employment in Pennsylvania for the benefit of the Commonwealth, its workforce and businesses. The "100 Best Places to Work in PA" program is made up of 50 medium-sized companies (50 to 250 employees) and 50 large-sized companies (251+ employees). After a two-part assessment process designed to gather detailed data about each company, ModernThink, LLC, a workplace excellence consulting firm, determines what companies make the final list. Best Companies coordinates the process and ModernThink evaluates all surveys submitted by companies. McNees has been named to the list of Best Places to Work in PA since 2006.	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials,	yes	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://theconversation.com/data-breaches-are-inevitable-heres-how-to-protect-yourself-anyway-109763	Data breaches are inevitable – here's how to protect yourself anyway	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options. Longer passwords don’t have to be harder to remember: They could be easily recalled phrases like “MyFirstCarWasAToyotaCorolla” or “InHighSchoolIWon9Cross-CountryRaces.” It can be daunting to think about remembering all these different usernames and passwords. Password management software can help – though choose carefully as more than one of them have beenbreached. It can be even safer – despite conventional wisdom and decades of security advice – to write them down, so long as you trust everyone who has access to your home. With these straightforward steps – and the new mindset of thinking like a target who wants to avoid getting hit – you’ll be far less worried when news breaks of the next breach of some company’s enormous data files. Bad guys may get one of your usernames, and maybe even one of your passwords – so you’ll have to change those. But they won’t have all your credentials for all your online accounts. And if you use multi-factor authentication, the bad guys might not even be able to get into the account whose credentials they just stole. Focus on what’s most important to protect, and use simple – but effective – methods to protect yourself and your information.	Authors Distinguished Research Professor of Computer Science; Director of Research, Center for Cybersecurity and Data Intelligence, University of Dayton Disclosure statement The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. As cybersecurityresearchers, we offer good news to brighten this bleak picture. There are some simple ways to protect your personal data that can still be effective, though they involve changing how you think about your own information security. The main thing is to assume that you are a target. Though most individual people aren’t specifically being watched, software that mines massive troves of data – enhanced by artificial intelligence – can target vast numbers of people almost as easily as any one person. Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm. What’s most important now? That said, it’s unproductive and frustrating to think you must pay attention to every possible avenue of attack. Simplify your approach by focusing on what information you most want to protect. In terms of online data, the most important information to protect is your login credentials for key accounts – like banking, government services, email and social media. You can’t do much about how well websites and companies safeguard your information, but you can make it harder for hackers to get into your account, or at least more than one of them. How? The first step is to use a different username and password on each crucial site or service. This can be complicated by sites’ limits on username options – or their dependence on email addresses. Similarly, many sites have requirements on passwords that limit their length or the number or type of characters that they can include. But do your best. Use long passwords There has been a lot of research about what makes a strong password – which has often led to many people using complex passwords like “7hi5!sMyP@s4w0rd.” But more recent research suggests that what matters much more is that passwords are long. That’s what makes them more resistant to an attempt to guess them by trying many different options.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.pcworld.com/article/1512897/if-data-breaches-are-inevitable-how-can-consumers-protect-their-identity.html	If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their ...	Norton, an industry-leading global brand in consumer Cyber Safety, offers all-in-one device protection against viruses, malware, phishing, identity theft and more. We empower people to live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently today and for generations to come. We bring award-winning products & services in cybersecurity, online privacy and identity protection to more than 50 million users, providing them with a trusted ally in a complex digital world. Sponsored If Data Breaches Are Inevitable, How Can Consumers Protect Their Identity? BrandPost Sponsored by NortonFeb 14, 2023 3:46 pm PST Image: Shutterstock 1723557016 Cybercrime risk in Australia isn’t just increasing – it’s exploding at an almost exponential rate. As reported by the ABC, recent ACCC data shows that Australians lost more than $47 million per month from January to September this year, based on reports to the government body. That’s a 90 per cent increase in losses compared with the same period last year. With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity. A lot of the time, when a person’s data is breached, it’s not enough for the cyber criminals to act on. They’ll need more, so they’ll start to look for ways to gain the additional information. Be wary of phone calls from sources you don’t recognise, emails that ask you to confirm details, and messages about attempted password changes on your accounts. These are signs that a cyber criminal may have some data and is investigating you further. 2) Read your card and account statements closely. Any unusual transactions should be flagged immediately, even if they’re so small that you think you may have simply forgotten the purchase. 3) Any changes of details. If any correspondence with the company or service has some details changed, be sure to check when those changes were made and who authorised them. 4) Talk to an Identity Restoration Specialist. To further understand the best practice approach, as well as next steps, if can be useful consulting with a specialist. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help here, by giving you access to expertise to assist you from the start of the process right through to the end. There are also some steps that you can – and should – take to resecure your data immediately. That way, if cybercriminals do compromise systems that you’re on, getting the rest of the data that they need to commit identity fraud on you is much more difficult. 1) Change all your passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA). With 2FA, consider getting a dedicated token device, or a second, pre-paid phone that you use exclusively for that purpose. “Hijacking phones” is an increasingly common strategy by cyber criminals, where they will convince your phone company to move your number to their device, and, once they’ve done that, they can circumvent all of your 2FA defences. Most people’s phone numbers can be researched online, so having a secure number that you don’t share and isn’t public for the purposes of 2FA is an extra layer of protection. 2) Remove as much personally identifiable information from social media as possible. It might be nice getting birthday messages on your Facebook wall or Twitter feed, but your date of birth is one of the most common pieces of data for verification, and if a cybercriminal has it it can be integral to getting access to your accounts. 3) Consider freezing your credit ratings. If you are seeing suspicious activity, contact the credit reporting agencies and put a freeze on your credit ratings. This can be unfrozen when you next need to apply for credit, but it will immediately prevent identity fraudsters from using your identity to take out credit in your name. 4) Consider getting new cards and other identifying documents (such as licenses and the passport). Getting these re-issued will change the numbers and security details, making the old information worthless. Norton Identity Advisor Plus can help with this as part of its solution. Finally, one thing that’s often overlooked in cases of identity theft is the cost of addressing it. Above and beyond the issue of any stolen money, dealing with identity theft can involve the use of lawyers and significant lost income in the time that you spend away from work. In addition to the monitoring and support features, Norton Identity Advisor Plus also includes insurance for losses and expenses related to identity theft, helping to minimise the overall impact for victims. While the social and political pressure is on organisations to be responsible with customer data, the threat profiles out there are simply too great, and the consensus is that security is more about minimising the impact of breaches than it is preventing them. At an individual level, consumers can do their part to protect themselves by being alert, understanding how to address a data breach, and then having the right tools and solutions to support them.	With just 13 per cent of victims reporting their losses, the actual losses to cyber crime are likely to be vastly higher. That jump in cyber crime also came before the multiple high-profile data breaches at large organisations that have occurred recently. Those breaches exposed the majority of Australians’ details to cyber criminals and put them at risk of fraud and identity theft. Already the first reports of losses as a direct result of those breaches have started to filter into the media. It’s going to be an expensive time ahead for the nation. What can individuals do to protect themselves from identity theft? It’s almost impossible to avoid putting the data on the Internet in our modern society. The vast majority of services are run over the Internet and, even if you don’t directly input the data yourself, banks, insurers, government agencies, and businesses that you interact with daily will store your data, as a customer, in Cloud services. If there’s a breach, your data could be compromised without you ever doing anything to put it at risk. There is the legal requirement to report to customers when a data breach has occurred, so you will know when (unfortunately, it is “when” and not “if”) your data has been compromised. However, you can also be proactive in monitoring your own identity for theft. Some of the key features of Norton Identity Advisor Plus product are tailored towards this, including: 1) Social Media Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus will keep an eye on your social media accounts and, if anything suspicious should occur, notify you immediately. This is particularly valuable for those social media accounts that you use less frequently. 2) Dark Web Monitoring – Norton Identity Advisor Plus continually scours the dark web and private forums to monitor for your personal information. Should it show up there, it will notify you of what has been stolen and sold. If your data has been compromised, you need to act quickly. While you might not necessarily be able to prevent the breach from compromising your data, there are things that you can do to protect yourself in the event it happens. 1) Watch for suspicious activity.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/security-breaches-inevitable-1/	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable - Infosecurity ...	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred. Therefore, with the newer NIS legislations, tick-box compliance exercises are well and truly a thing of the past; it will become vital for organizations to raise the bar and prove their compliance in line with these regulations to improve resilience. One way organizations can check themselves is by following a set of chosen cybersecurity frameworks (CSF), such as Cyber Essentials, NIST, ISO, CIS, etc., which will help determine the security measures they have in place are, in fact, appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, in efforts to postpone damages from threats that have made it beyond the initial phases, cybersecurity teams have invested in detection capabilities to identify lateral movement, privilege escalation, anomalous behavior, command and control traffic and so on. Ultimately, these controls seek to postpone the inevitable and delay the imminent. However, what stops security breaches from growing into major incidents and becoming catastrophic incidents is an organization’s ability to respond and recover effectively. This plays not only into the tools and cybersecurity frameworks (CSFs) selected by the organization to help protect them but also into the overall security culture of the business that acknowledges the need for continually doing better when it comes to cybersecurity. Continuous Improvement for a Stronger Security Culture Response and recovery controls move the bar away from cybersecurity and towards cyber resilience. Thus, not only can cybersecurity teams seek to control the frequency of breaches impacting the organization, but they also seek to limit the magnitude. The Japanese philosophical process of Kaizen, meaning ‘the pursuit of perfection’, can be applied to how organizations manage their adversarial defense strategies. Although perfection is unattainable in cybersecurity, this should not prevent cybersecurity teams from striving for continuous improvement. In doing so, organizations can strengthen their security culture as well as achieve successful risk management and improve resiliency as a result. For better or worse, security culture and resilience are inextricably linked. However, maintaining a strong security culture within cybersecurity teams can be challenging, particularly in a sector filled with experts with diverse opinions. A CSF can minimize a security breach’s frequency and magnitude and override individual opinions. Still, this raises the critical question of why many cybersecurity teams remain hesitant to commit to CSFs in the first place. The reality of this predicament is that many organizations fail before they’ve even started because they lack investing for a unifying purpose and disregard the importance of standardized goals. Even NIST agrees that culture can inform and, to an extent, define an organization’s risk management strategy, changing the language it uses in a recent update to encompass security awareness training and culture. This is not to say that organizations should dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to security controls. Instead, organizations need to comprehend that strengthening culture with the adoption of CSFs enables a defined thinking process that is applied to each cyber risk encountered. Therefore, by applying standardized tools to standardized thinking, organizations will have a unified approach to risk assessment that offers predictable levels of certainty and assurance, providing all the safe harbors that cyber resilience offers. The best security programs will not only have decision-making and culture initiatives mapped to a best practice CSF but also the security technology that enables alignment with these frameworks as well – giving organizations the reassurance and proof they need to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate measures to limit and contain security incidents.	Security Breaches Are Inevitable, Not Illimitable Written by Not all security breaches are created equal, and while they may be inevitable and imminent, they are not illimitable. Much like a butterfly’s metamorphosis, security breaches go through phases. For instance, the MITRE att&ck framework and Lockheed Martin Kill chain are prime examples of a phased methodology for prescribing where a security breach is in its lifecycle and what defenses at each stage will limit the damage that attackers can do. While security breaches do have the power to create illimitable damage, this only comes as a consequence of organizations lacking strong security culture, resilience and failure to strive for continuous improvement. Security breaches may be inevitable and imminent, but the impact of these attacks ultimately lies with the mindset of its targets. Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail Organizations that proactively prepare for a breach before its occurrence can execute successful damage control. Enforcing cybersecurity measures before an attack can positively change cybersecurity mindsets, ultimately transforming an organization’s approach towards imminent attacks. The consequence of not being prepared for an attack can put an organization’s level of maturity, compliance and resilience into serious question. The court ruling of the Equifax data breach in 2017 proves that organizations that cannot provide evidence of taking the appropriate measures repeatedly over time will be held liable for the cost of damages from the attack. Appropriate and Proportionate Controls Whilst the existing Network & Information Systems (NIS) legislation simulates the implementation of appropriate and proportionate controls using state-of-the-art technologies, the newer regulations go a step further and will introduce fines if these minimum controls are not met. In fact, the latest revision to the existing NIS legislation, known as NIS2, proposes to introduce another level of penalty for organizations that fail to adhere to a minimum set of requirements and compliance functions, irrespective of whether a breach has occurred.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.securityinfowatch.com/cybersecurity/information-security/article/12052877/preparing-for-your-companys-inevitable-data-breach	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when ...	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide. Companies continue to increase their budgets for more and better security technology and yet the breaches continue to occur more frequently and with greater impact. The primary methods for protecting information are based on securing an organization’s perimeter. Things like firewalls, intrusion detection systems (IDS), multi-factor authentication and virtual private networks (VPN) are all based on keeping the cyber attackers out. As information technology evolves, the perimeter of an organization’s infrastructure continues to fade as a result of ever-increasing connectivity between customers, suppliers, and service providers. Add mobile devices (tablets, phones, etc.), teleworking and cloud computing to the mix and it is nearly impossible to define where the “perimeter” is. The problem with relying primarily on traditional perimeter security approaches is that many of the recent high profile breaches were not the result of failed perimeter security. Rather, the breaches were the result of attackers using compromised IDs and passwords from authorized users. Once inside, the attackers methodically explore and exploit internal vulnerabilities (which are generally not protected as well) until they gain access to the information they are seeking. Former Websense CSO Jason Clark recently stated that 80 percent of security spend is going to firewalls, IDS and anti-virus solutions, despite only being effective to 30 percent of threats. The sooner we recognize that our tried and true security techniques are failing us, the sooner we can take a fresh look at preparing for the inevitable. A shift in focus from “if” we have a breach, to “when” we have a breach will pay dividends as a result of better planning and preparation. Preparing for a Data Security Breach Studies show that the appointment of a Chief Information Security Officer and involvement of business continuity management in the incident response process decreased the costs of breaches per compromised record by $10 and $13, respectively. However, the most significant cost reductions for organizations came from having a strong security posture, which reduced the average cost of a data breach by $21 per compromised record, and an incident response plan, which shrunk the cost by $17 per compromised record. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared for a breach in data security. The starting point in planning for cyber-attacks is having an incident response plan (IRP) in place to ensure appropriate action if security is breached. An effective IRP will address preventative controls, timely detection of potential problems and rapid response to data security breaches. The key components of a well-defined IRP include: Incident Response Team – Select individuals from departments that will be involved when a data security breach occurs, such as Executive Management, Information Technology, Human Resources, Public Relations, Legal, and Operations. Identify the roles each Incident Response Team member will play and ensure they have the authority to execute. Data Classification – The organization’s incident response strategy takes into account the type of data compromised by the breach in determining its response efforts and activities. Categorize data so employees know how to handle various types of information. Levels can include “public/non-classified,” “internal use only” and “confidential.” Then, focus on protecting the most confidential data. Communication Plan – A comprehensive communication plan involves more than maintaining a current contact list of Incident Response Team members, system support personnel and external service providers. The organization should also plan what message it wants to convey and to whom it will communicate internally and externally after a security breach. Include an alternative plan when the normal notification process is pre-empted. Training – Incident preparedness training ensures that all company personnel are ready to handle data breaches before they occur. Incident Response Team members should be well versed in how to appropriately evaluate, respond and manage security incidents. Even if not directly involved in the incident management process, all staff should understand the company’s overall breach response plan so that their actions support, not hinder, breach response efforts. Testing – The IRP should be thoroughly and continuously tested in advance of an actual data breach to help identify process gaps and provide assurance that the plan will be effective in responding to incidents. The Human Element Without a doubt, employees are the weakest link in the security chain. While businesses have done an excellent job in the last decade of improving the process and technology aspects of IT security, they’ve fallen short in training their own employees to defend and protect their company information. The curious and fallible nature of humans demands that companies train and reinforce their employees on these matters. This is an area that companies cannot afford to overlook. “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) complicates matters as employees create new risk by accessing company data with their own technological devices including laptops, smartphones and tablets. Employees must be motivated to think about and understand the security risks and consequences associated with their actions. One Step Ahead It is critical that an organization be aware of the new risks and new ways to address them, allocating time regularly to exploring new threats and new controls. Even with all the proper precautions in place, data breaches will continue to happen. We will always be vulnerable, but how we prepare can help ease the pain when an attack hits. Preventative measures will minimize disruption to customers, operations and productivity, and aggressively managing through the security breach will yield a much more desirable outcome. David Barton is a Managing Director at UHY Advisors, and leads the Internal Audit, Risk and Compliance practice. He is an expert in information security and technology risk and controls. Reach him at dbarton@uhy-us.com and follow him on Twitter at @ITcontrolsfreak.	When will your data breach happen? Not a question of if but when U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2013 came at a price of $38 billion, according to the 2013 Norton Cybercrime Report by ZDNet and USA TODAY. Hackers today have become savvier, learning new ways to infiltrate networks. IT security is a growing threat for businesses of every type and no organization is safe. While information security risks have been around for a long time (several Civil War battles were decided by details obtained by the enemy), today they bring with them challenging complexities and costly ramifications for businesses. U.S. consumer cyber-attacks in 2014 averaged $5.85 million per breach.[1] The average cost per record compromised was $201 per record.[2] Hackers today are learning new ways to infiltrate web sites and networks. Hacking toolkits and the necessary hardware and software infrastructure are available for sale or for rent via the Internet. Employees have ready access to company information and are often ignorant about how to detect and prevent breaches because of a general lack of training. That means a cyber-attack at your company is no longer a question of if, but when. Anthem Insurance, Sony, JP Morgan Chase, Target and Home Depot are some of the bigger names that have recently been in the headlines due to cyber-attacks, but there are countless other small and medium-sized businesses that are going through the very same breaches, just on a smaller scale. The Target breach led to the resignations of both the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the credit card issuers that ended up footing the bill as a result of the breach are attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against Target in order to recoup some of their losses. Similarly, former employees and business partners of Sony that had personal information exposed in that breach have also brought a class action suit against the company. The Disappearing Perimeter It is clear from examining the year over year statistics related to data breaches that the collective efforts of information security teams have done little to stem the tide.	yes
Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	no_statement	"data" "breaches" are not "inevitable".. it is not "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.acronis.com/en-us/blog/posts/three-most-important-takeaways-spiceworks-spiceworldatx/	The 3 Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks' #SpiceWorldATX	The Three Most Important Takeaways from Spiceworks’ #SpiceWorldATX This week, thousands of IT professionals and reps from hundreds of tech brands descended on Austin, Texas for the 11th annual SpiceWorld conference. Hosted by the IT industry marketplace, Spiceworks, SpiceWorld 2019 featured more than 60 expert-led tech sessions, hands-on demos of newly released tools, and a peek at what’s next in the IT industry. If you weren’t able to make it to SpiceWorld this year, don’t worry. Acronis Community Evangelist Bagaudin Satuev walked the show floor and attended the most highly anticipated sessions to share valuable takeaways from the conference. Read his SpiceWorld 2019 recap below to make sure you’re caught up with the top three insights from this year’s show to help your career and your business excel. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. IT budgets are on the rise at SpiceWorld 2019 1. IT Budget Growth is on the Rise The conference kicked off with some welcome statistics from Spiceworks Executive Director of Product Management Elizabeth Ronco: 44% of businesses plan to increase their IT budgets in 2020. That represents a 6% increase over 2019 respondents. Key drivers in this IT budget increase decision include IT infrastructure enhancements and updates, security expansions, and employee growth efforts – all of which directly correlate with the increased complexity, security, and cost challenges found in modern IT environments. These new funds are due to be widely spread, Ronco added, drawing audience attention to results from Spiceworks recently released its State of IT Report. According to their research, your IT budget allocation is likely to breakdown with: 33% dedicated to hardware 29% dedicated to software 22% dedicated to hosted/cloud-based services 15% dedicated to managed services AI and robotics at SpiceWorld 2019 2. Tech’s Future is in Expanding Capabilities The future of technology is expanding rapidly. Innovations in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, serverless computing, 5G, hyperconverged infrastructures, and more are all vying for your attention and your budget. But MIT Media Lab researcher Dr. Kate Darling noted that, all too often, we approach these innovations the wrong way. “When it comes to robots and AI, we’re constantly comparing artificial intelligence to human intelligence and robots to people,” said Darling. “However, artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence. The robots are already much smarter than us in really specific ways.” In suggesting this realigned perspective, Darling imagines innovations like AI as a complementary resource to what humans already excel at. “The potential of the technology is not in recreating something that we already have. When we’re thinking about integrating artificial intelligence and robots, we should be thinking about the technologies as a partner.” As AI and other innovations become central to IT operations, they will become more and more vital to performing your job and protecting your data. And, per Darling’s advice, the best way to strengthen your comfort with these technologies is to consider how they can help you achieve more. What we learn from data breaches at SpiceWorld 2019 3. Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world. You’ll gain first-hand experience with the latest innovations in cyber protection, connect with industry experts on the topics above, and learn how you can get your organization CyberFit so it can counter modern threats – ensuring the safety, accessibility, privacy, authenticity, and security of your data. Acronis is a Swiss company, founded in Singapore. Celebrating two decades of innovation, Acronis has more than 2,000 employees in 45 locations. Acronis Cyber Protect solution is available in 26 languages in over 150 countries and is used by 18,000 service providers to protect over 750,000 businesses.	Intrusions are Inevitable. Data Breaches are Not. Journalist and best-selling author Brian Krebs helped close out SpiceWorld 2019 with an analysis of cybercrime, ransomware, and data breaches. Interestingly, Krebs focused his talk on what an IT professional can learn from these attacks more so than what they can do to help prevent them. “As long as humans are behind keyboards, intrusions are inevitable. What’s not inevitable is the data breach,” said Krebs. He went on to say that, while robust protection from cyberthreats like ransomware is invaluable, learning from data breaches are just as important for future improvements. “We need to get better at learning lessons from breaches about how we’re doing security poorly,” Krebs said. Among the many lessons he cited IT professionals could learn from these events were the need for improved password regulations, mobile policies, and 24/7 monitoring. “If your organization doesn’t have monitoring looking for anomalies, blocking certain file types, and being really suspicious of things coming into your gateway,” he warned, “you’re going to have a really hard time overcoming modern cyberthreats.” Next Step for an IT Pro If these tech takeaways from SpiceWorld are valuable to your work, then next month’s Acronis Global Cyber Summit should definitely be on your schedule. From October 13-16 in sunny Miami, Florida, Acronis will bring together the world’s largest community of cyber protection professionals for a two-and-a-half day conference dedicated to exploring and improving protection of critical data assets and systems. If you haven’t yet, be sure to register for the Acronis Global Cyber Summit to join IT professionals, service providers, resellers, ISVs, and developers from around the world.	no	Digital Rights	Are Data Breaches Inevitable?	yes_statement	"data" "breaches" are "inevitable".. it is "inevitable" for "data" "breaches" to occur.	https://www.mcneeslaw.com/data-breaches-ready-inevitable/	Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? - McNees ...	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials, phony applications, and other clever social engineering tricks. The most important proactive step a company can take to prevent a data breach is to have a comprehensive written information security plan (WISP) in place that identifies what PII the company collects, how and where it is stored, and who has authorized access to it. The plan should be implemented on an enterprise-wide basis (throughout the company, not just in the IT department), and it should be tested periodically to identify and manage any security risks and to ensure that all employees and vendors are complying with the plan. The key elements of an Incident Response Plan. Step two is the creation of an Incident Response Plan, the go-to game plan with detailed action steps in case a data breach happens. Your response plan should be documented in writing and regularly updated and tested. Your Incident Response Plan should address key questions: Who’s on the team? Many people should be at the table, including in-house personnel and outside vendors (including some you may wish to have on retainer in case a data breach occurs). Legal counsel should provide guidance about legal requirements, including applicable notice requirements in your business’s home state and in the states and countries where your customers or clients reside. Public relations personnel, skilled in crisis management, should have draft notification letters (ready in advance of a breach) – that are honest but calm – explaining the breach and the remediation steps you are taking. IT experts must be engaged in advance, standing ready to investigate the cause of the breach and take immediate steps to contain the damage. Who’s in charge? One person must serve as project manager or team leader – the primary decision maker. The team reports to this person, who in turn reports to executives (and the board). The leader must be capable of sharing technical and legal information clearly, consistently, and without jargon. Who needs to be notified? Legal counsel will help you determine if notification is required and who needs to be notified. This will depend on whether you can determine what PII was accessed, whether it was strongly encrypted, and what was done with the PII that was exposed. Should law enforcement be contacted? This is a delicate issue, since the information involved is often proprietary. Legal advice is needed to determine whether law enforcement must be contacted. Businesses should build relationships with law enforcement agencies in advance, so you are not calling the FBI, Secret Service, FTC, state attorneys’ general, or Homeland Security out of the blue. Law enforcement agencies can sometimes advise businesses on data security practices and even assist them with table-top exercises to look for problems and help plan a response to a data breach. What recourse will be offered to victims? After breaches, most companies offer customers some form of remediation, often free credit monitoring. These steps will be determined once your response team determines what PII was accessed, what harm has been caused by the breach, and whether the data was just viewed or duplicated. What’s the budget? Incident Response Plans often rely heavily on outside professionals and vendors to perform the legal analysis, technical and forensic investigations, external and internal communications, credit monitoring, and other steps the plan provides for – all of which is expensive. Increasingly, businesses are purchasing cyber insurance to cover the costs of data breaches. Don’t wait for an emergency! Plan for the inevitable. After a data breach occurs is not the time to be writing a plan and drafting letters. The Incident Response Plan is essential to being ‘crisis-ready’. Bringing on an experienced firm that can help you plan for and implement practical solutions to privacy threats and breaches and advise your business on protecting data is critical. Solutions vary by industry, due to state and federal laws and regulations, but with diligent guidance, businesses can do their utmost to protect their reputations and their customers from data breaches. RELATED PROFESSIONALS Tel: Email: Related Practices Attorney Email Disclaimer If you are not a current client of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, before submitting any information, please read and accept the following terms: Email addresses of our attorneys are not provided as a means for prospective clients to contact our firm or to submit information to us. By clicking "I ACCEPT," you acknowledge that McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already have agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we can represent a party in a manner adverse to you even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in that matter. ALFA International McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is a member of the ALFA International legal network. The ALFA network is comprised of 125 law firms with nearly 300 offices throughout the United States and around the World. The 85 U.S. firms and 40 international members employ over 8,000 lawyers and 10,000 legal support staff. As an ALFA member, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC is able to draw upon the vast resources of the network’s membership to better serve its clients. ALFA affiliation also facilitates and expedites the retention of outstanding counsel in unfamiliar jurisdictions, another significant client benefit. More information about the ALFA legal network can be found at www.alfainternational.com. Best Places to Work in PA This survey, study and award program is intended to identify the best places of employment in Pennsylvania for the benefit of the Commonwealth, its workforce and businesses. The "100 Best Places to Work in PA" program is made up of 50 medium-sized companies (50 to 250 employees) and 50 large-sized companies (251+ employees). After a two-part assessment process designed to gather detailed data about each company, ModernThink, LLC, a workplace excellence consulting firm, determines what companies make the final list. Best Companies coordinates the process and ModernThink evaluates all surveys submitted by companies. McNees has been named to the list of Best Places to Work in PA since 2006.	Media Center Data Breaches: Are You Ready (for the inevitable)? “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and those that don’t know they’ve been hacked.” ~ John Chambers, former CEO of Cisco In 2015, identity theft occurred every two seconds, disrupting the lives of 13.1 million people, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. Year after year, U.S. data breaches have hit record highs, reports the Identity Theft Resource Center. Responsibility for cyber security has risen to the “C” level, where executive officers and boards are now accountable for appropriate oversight and safeguarding of the personally identifiable information (PII) collected. Every company needs to be focused on preventing, detecting, and responding properly to a data breach. Your company needs to have a security plan and a response plan in place before a data breach occurs. Historically, companies have been concerned primarily with damage to their reputation resulting from a data breach incident. But the damage is worsened if it turns out the breach could have been prevented! PII includes your name, address, birth date, account numbers, email addresses, passwords, and Social Security Number. It is virtually impossible to be in business today and not collect or store PII. Preventing data breaches. Be Proactive. Step one is using best practices to prevent data breaches and their resulting damage to your business’s finances, reputation, customer relationships, and image. Breaches can occur in countless creative ways but, in general, fall under three main categories: Theft or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops, smart phones, tablets and other mobile and storage devices. Illegal entry to deliberately access PII through hacking, viruses or other methods. Inadequate oversight caused by lax system security. The common denominator in most breaches is a current or former employee or vendor. The data breach might be the intentional act of a disgruntled person, or an employee tricked into opening a message that appears to be genuine but is actually meant to break into your computer system by malicious scams such as “phishing”, fake credentials,	yes
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16043682	Once rare, Florida panthers are rebounding	Once rare, Florida panthers are rebounding In recent years, Florida panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades. It's a resurgence that has created problems when the big cats interact, or collide, with civilization. As urban sprawl creeps further into nature, human-panther encounters are becoming more common. David Shindle / AP Dec. 5, 2006, 12:45 AM UTC / Source: The Associated Press Schoolteacher Theresa Ryan sensed an eerie presence behind her as she sat at a picnic table at her boyfriend’s rural home. Then she heard the breathing. “I turned around and there was a panther 15 feet away. We were face to face,” she said. “It had no place to go except at me or by me.” She flailed her arms and screamed to scare the cat. “It just sauntered away. No hurry. It was never afraid,” she said. “It was very freaky.” For decades, such encounters with Florida panthers were extraordinarily rare, like the endangered animals themselves. But in recent years, panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades, prompting officials to warn residents to be aware of the cats and to keep their children close at dusk and dawn. The big cats have since killed emus from a zoo, and goats and dogs from rural back yards. Documented panther attacks on livestock jumped from two in 2004 to six so far this year, and 10 panthers have been killed on highways this year alone. Habitat surrounded But biologists fear the increased panther encounters may be short-lived as the cats’ remaining habitat — 2.5 million acres in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park and a few strands of wild state land — becomes surrounded by some of the fastest-growing areas in the nation. In this Jan. 2002 photo released by the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission a Florida panther kitten is seen at the Florida Panther Wildlife refuge, Fla. As urban sprawl creeps further into nature, human-panther encounters are becoming more common. Panthers and humans are continuously competing for space and according to scientists, people just might prevail, which would ultimately mean the extinction for the big cats. (AP Photo/Mark Lotz, Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission)Mark Lotz / FLORIDA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION CO “The way we’re building, we’re going to push the panthers out,” said biologist Larry Richardson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “My big concern is the panther will become a zoo relic.” He added: “If we build out even half the potential of what the state says we can, forget about the panthers.” Florida panthers, which can weigh up to 155 pounds, are one of several subspecies of cougar in the United States and the last type still roaming east of the Mississippi. Thousands of these panthers once ranged throughout the Southeast. By the 1950s, the panther had been hunted to near extinction, leading to their eventual protection, beginning in the 1970s, under the federal Endangered Species Act. But continued loss of habitat caused its numbers to dwindle to about 30 as recently as the mid-’90s. Those that remained showed signs of inbreeding and disease. A deeper gene pool It was not until wildlife biologists introduced eight female Texas cougars in 1995 that the gene pool began to broaden and the numbers started creeping back up. Even that small increase in population has heightened the threat to suburban back yards, since each male cat can range up to 200 miles. At a recent town hall meeting in Collier County, state and federal officials gave residents safety tips, even though there has never been a documented attack on a human in Florida. The tips included trimming scrub from property to remove food sources that attract deer, the panther’s favorite prey, and to deprive the big cats of places where they can hide and stalk. Among the other advice: Don’t let children play outside in known panther areas at twilight, when the cats are most likely to feed. That wasn’t what everyone wanted to hear. “I personally want humans to stay on top of the food chain,” said Barbara Jean Powell of the Everglades Coordinating Council, an umbrella group of sportsmen associations that strongly supports private property rights. Ryan’s close encounter with a wild animal took place last month in a hamlet inside Big Cypress National Preserve. Wildlife experts are not convinced she saw a Florida panther and say it may have been a bobcat. But the schoolteacher was shaken: “We don’t need them here. This animal does not need to be protected anymore.” However, Elizabeth Fleming with Defenders of Wildlife said that people are the problem and that state and federal governments aren’t doing enough to protect panther habitat from urban sprawl, in part because of a lack of money to acquire land. Federal funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to drop by 20 percent in 2008. “It’s death by a thousand cuts,” she said. “The Endangered Species Act wasn’t set up to stop development, but the panther has extremely large territorial requirements. If that area becomes suburbanized, it doesn’t take much to see that there won’t be any more panthers.” Darrell Land, lead panther biologist for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, said that day is nearing fast. “We’ve hit the slippery slope and we’re closing in on the bottom,” Land said. “We’re all getting frustrated with congestion and high cost of housing, but we’ve got to achieve a balance. We simply cannot afford to take over every square foot of Florida and put a house on it.”	Once rare, Florida panthers are rebounding In recent years, Florida panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades. It's a resurgence that has created problems when the big cats interact, or collide, with civilization. As urban sprawl creeps further into nature, human-panther encounters are becoming more common. David Shindle / AP Dec. 5, 2006, 12:45 AM UTC / Source: The Associated Press Schoolteacher Theresa Ryan sensed an eerie presence behind her as she sat at a picnic table at her boyfriend’s rural home. Then she heard the breathing. “I turned around and there was a panther 15 feet away. We were face to face,” she said. “It had no place to go except at me or by me.” She flailed her arms and screamed to scare the cat. “It just sauntered away. No hurry. It was never afraid,” she said. “It was very freaky.” For decades, such encounters with Florida panthers were extraordinarily rare, like the endangered animals themselves. But in recent years, panthers have rebounded from the brink of extinction to about 100 on the southwestern edge of the Everglades, prompting officials to warn residents to be aware of the cats and to keep their children close at dusk and dawn. The big cats have since killed emus from a zoo, and goats and dogs from rural back yards. Documented panther attacks on livestock jumped from two in 2004 to six so far this year, and 10 panthers have been killed on highways this year alone. Habitat surrounded But biologists fear the increased panther encounters may be short-lived as the cats’ remaining habitat — 2.5 million acres in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park and a few strands of wild state land — becomes surrounded by some of the fastest-growing areas in the nation.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/threatened-species-science-genetic-rescue-180963040/	Threatened Species? Science to the (Genetic) Rescue! \| Science ...	Threatened Species? Science to the (Genetic) Rescue! This still-controversial conservation technique will never be a species’ panacea. But it might provide a crucial stop-gap Laura Poppick April 27, 2017 Roughly 70 pink pigeons exist in captivity around the world, including this one at the San Diego Zoo. Dick Daniels Like the doomed passenger pigeon in 1914, the pink pigeon of Mauritius is standing on the edge of a precipice. After watching all of its other pigeon cousins on this remote island go extinct—including the dodo, its infamous island-mate last seen in 1662—this rosy-hued bird is now looking down the dark gullet of extinction itself. After yo-yo’ing down to a population of just around nine individuals in the 1990s, the studly birds are back up to a population of about 400 today. But that number is still small enough to leave them dangerously vulnerable. The pink pigeon’s lack of genetic diversity has left it increasingly susceptible to a parasite-causing disease called trichomonosis, which kills more than half of its chicks and limits population growth. Fortunately, it isn't 1662 anymore. Today, an evolving conservation tool could help pull these birds back from the brink of extinction: genetic rescue. It works by adding genetic diversity to these kinds of precariously numbered populations—by introducing specific individuals or, potentially, by someday directly editing their genes. If it works, this pigeon’s future may once again be as rosy as its plumage. “We want to try to give them the tools to fight this disease,” says Camilla Ryan, a graduate student who studies the Mauritius pigeon with genomics researcher Matt Clark at England’s Earlham University. “The birds don’t have the numbers or potentially the genetic diversity to deal with the disease themselves.” Clark and Ryan are hoping to pull this population back on its feet by pinpointing the genes that make these birds so vulnerable to in the first place. Then, they’ll sample captive pink pigeons in zoos and parks around the world in search of genes better suited to fight the disease, with the ultimate goal of potentially mating these with the wild population. The team has already generated genetic data from 180 different pink pigeons. Still, the pair remain cautious in implementing a technique that has brewed controversy ever since it started becoming more readily implemented in the 1990s, in hallmark cases of rescuing Florida panthers and Illinois prairie chickens. They aren’t alone: Many conservationists argue that the approach could create unforeseen problems for species at risk, and that it doesn't resolve the underlying problems that push so many species to the brink of extinction, including habitat loss due to human development. But as humans continue to encroach on wild habitats and alter global climate patterns, the situation for many species has become more dire. Now, many researchers are turning to genetic rescue this as a viable tool to pull these most vulnerable species from the brink of extinction. In the more distant future, some scientists think we might be able to go further, genetically modifying animals to become better suited to their rapidly changing environments. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. For now, scientists are focused on sharpening their genomics tools. When populations like the pink pigeon’s shrink down to the double or even single digits, they experience something called inbreeding depression. Essentially, that means they have less diversity in their gene pool, which makes it harder for them to beat challenges in their environment. Signs of this have been found in numerous species, including an isolated population of wolves in Michigan where individuals started to develop an unusual arched posture and stubby tails—possible indicators of poor health. Now, Ryan and Clark are scouring historic tissue samples from five museums across Europe to look for genes that older pink pigeons may have once had to fight off disease before inbreeding depression took hold. The team will then look for captive birds that may have maintained these historic helpful genes to mate them with the wild population. Each genotype you introduce into the existing population comes with its own pros and cons. So the team must be careful not to introduce new problems into the wild birds’ immune systems, says Clark. “You could end up breeding a population that is very successful at fighting off Trichomonas, but what you have done is accidentally decreased the amount of diversity in the immune system,” says Clark. If that’s the case, he adds, a new disease that they weren’t prepared for could theoretically hit and wipe out the entire population. Mating captive birds with wild birds also runs the risk of introducing genes that the captive birds had evolved to survive in captivity, weakening the wild bird’s ability to survive in the wild. “By trying to help them out, you’ve made it worse,” Clark says. This threat, called outbreeding depression, raises hackles amongst conservation biologists and is a primary argument against using genetic rescue more widely. The Florida panther is a hallmark of how genetic rescue can help pull species from the brink of extinction. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yet despite these risks, several success stories have shown that genetic rescue can work. One of the major success stories conservationists point to is the Florida panther. This large, iconic cat once lurked through the southeastern U.S in large numbers, enjoying its status as top predator and vital member of the ecosystem. But by the 1970s, habitat loss and hunting had shrunk the population to between 12 and 20 adults. Not only were their numbers dismal, but almost all of the male panthers showed signs of inbreeding depression, including undescended testicles, kinked tails and low sperm counts. Conservationists didn’t want to see this cat—which helped keep populations of white-tailed deer, wild hog, and other prey animals in check—go extinct. So in 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked with a team of researchers to transfer eight female mountain lions from Texas to mate with the Florida panthers. They hoped the mountain lions, which are a subspecies of the panther, would revitalize the gene pool and boost the population size. Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University, says he had his doubts at first. If you were trying to rescue a species that had become so rare that it showed genetic damage, he believed, then it was already too late to save them. Many of his colleagues agreed. “You were treating the symptom rather than the cause,” Pimm says, citing habitat loss as the major cause in this case. But the researchers went ahead, and mated the panthers and the mountain lions. Amazingly, their efforts seemed to work. The panther population grew and the next generation appeared free of kinked tails, undescended tentacles, and other signs of inbreeding. “All of those things disappeared,” says Pimm. Ten years later, Pimm ran a follow-up study showing they had sustained a growing population free of these signs of inbreeding depression. “It was fast, it was a very effective process,” he says now. Other success stories popped up in the 1990s. Great prairie chicken populations grew for the first time in decades (though more recent studies question the role of genetic rescue in this success), along with the Swedish adder, a venomous snake that had suffered from inbreeding. Today, Pimm has changed his tune: He now believes genetic rescue can be an excellent tool in a conservationist’s toolbox, and is considering using it to protect other top predators, including lions in Africa. Florida panthers have become an icon of genetic rescue success. Michaelstone428 As researchers around the world consider implementing genetic rescue, they must better understand how the risk of outbreeding depression could differ from species to species. Unfortunately, because genetic rescue has been so controversial, few cases exist that could offer this information. Even the success stories of the panthers, chickens and adders hold limited information regarding how the mechanism might transfer from one species to another, says Andrew Whiteley, a conservation genomics researcher at the University of Montana. That’s partly because these cases weren’t done systematically—they were more of a last-ditch effort to save a critically endangered species. “Those were done in response to a pressing management concern, they weren’t really done to test the concept of genetic rescue in an experimentally rigorous way,” says Whiteley. “So those uncertainties are going to remain.” Working to fill those knowledge gaps, Whitely has been conducting experiments with brook trout—a species easier to experimentally study than large predators—in which his team has moved fish into four different isolated populations and introduced fish from elsewhere to mate with them. Preliminary results suggest that the first round of matings were successful, but the real measure of success will come with the second generation’s ability to survive and reproduce—this is where symptoms of outbreeding depression tend to arise. He plans to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the second generation’s ability to survive and reproduce, building a so-called pedigree to see how genes flow through the system. “And ultimately dig in with genomics to understand at the genome level what happened when this pulse of gene flow entered this small population,” says Whiteley. “Those are the types of data we need to be able to make solid recommendations.” If the traditional form of genetic rescue is considered controversial, a newly developing iteration will like start a far louder hullabaloo. Today, biologists are considering literal tinkering with animal genomes, by genetically engineering them to have certain traits. “We are not at the stage of doing any rescuing yet, we are just setting the stage for doing that in the future if it will work out,” says Fleischer. Oliver Ryder, director of Conservation Genetics at San Diego Zoo Global, says these techniques could someday prove invaluable, but that broader discussions about the ethics and logistics would need to come first. Within those discussions, researchers would need to weigh the risks associated with each case—including the risk that the efforts simply wouldn’t work. “In spite of the efforts, the pathogen would find a way around the solution or the engineering,” says Ryder, “so all of the effort would not be sufficient to keep the species from going extinct.” Ryder is involved in a broader effort to develop yet another genetic rescue approach, and is interested in using it to save the Northern White Rhino. The technique, which is still years away, would use stem cell technology to produce eggs and sperm from frozen Northern White Rhinos cells stored at the San Diego Zoo Global. His team is also looking into using frozen sperm to create embryos from eggs obtained either from the last living females or through stem cell techniques. They would then theoretically transfer embryos into closely related rhinos, who would serve as surrogates. This rhino is the perfect candidate for such an approach, in part because there are only three of these individuals left that are all unable to breed naturally, Ryder says. “The Northern White Rhino is functionally extinct,” says Ryder. “The only way to keep it from going extinct would be to genetically rescue it using advanced genetic and reproductive technologies.” For now, researchers generally agree that traditional genetic rescue without genetic modification offers the most immediate conservation solution. However, it will never be the end-all solution to saving degrading populations. Instead, it offers a stop-gap opportunity to deal other overlying issues like reducing isolation and improving habitat, says Chris Funk, a researcher at Colorado State University who has conducted studies on Trinidadian guppies to track when and how outbreeding depression may arise. Funk, like Pimm, at first called himself a skeptic—not because he didn’t believe genetic rescue could work, but because he considered himself a purist when it came to conservation. But as more and more populations become isolated and threatened by increasing human pressures and development, he says he has come to realize that some compromises may be necessary. “There is accumulating evidence that it can work in a lot of circumstances,” says Funk. “We are not going to have the luxury to have this purist attitude,” he continues. “If we want these populations on the landscape, we are going to have to use genetic rescue to keep them from going extinct.”	One of the major success stories conservationists point to is the Florida panther. This large, iconic cat once lurked through the southeastern U.S in large numbers, enjoying its status as top predator and vital member of the ecosystem. But by the 1970s, habitat loss and hunting had shrunk the population to between 12 and 20 adults. Not only were their numbers dismal, but almost all of the male panthers showed signs of inbreeding depression, including undescended testicles, kinked tails and low sperm counts. Conservationists didn’t want to see this cat—which helped keep populations of white-tailed deer, wild hog, and other prey animals in check—go extinct. So in 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked with a team of researchers to transfer eight female mountain lions from Texas to mate with the Florida panthers. They hoped the mountain lions, which are a subspecies of the panther, would revitalize the gene pool and boost the population size. Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University, says he had his doubts at first. If you were trying to rescue a species that had become so rare that it showed genetic damage, he believed, then it was already too late to save them. Many of his colleagues agreed. “You were treating the symptom rather than the cause,” Pimm says, citing habitat loss as the major cause in this case. But the researchers went ahead, and mated the panthers and the mountain lions. Amazingly, their efforts seemed to work. The panther population grew and the next generation appeared free of kinked tails, undescended tentacles, and other signs of inbreeding. “All of those things disappeared,” says Pimm. Ten years later, Pimm ran a follow-up study showing they had sustained a growing population free of these signs of inbreeding depression. “It was fast, it was a very effective process,” he says now. Other success stories popped up in the 1990s.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://keysweekly.com/42/rare-and-endangered-the-florida-panther-and-us/	Rare And Endangered: The Florida Panther And Us	In the April 2021 NatGeo issue, the story unfolds through maps, timelines, words and photos. They follow the path of the panther across the state and through time. It took veteran explorer and photographer Carlton Ward Jr. five years to capture the defining photographic body of work on these elusive, endangered animals. A proud eighth-generation Floridian, he knows that the panther’s future is necessarily intertwined with our own. He sat down with Keys Weekly to share what he learned. “The lead image for the story, a panther jumping across a log around a flooded section of swamp, that picture took two years to capture,” he laughed. National Geographic photographer and explorer Carlton Ward Jr. has trekked more than 2,000 miles through Florida to bring awareness to land conservation needs. CARLTON WARD JR. Florida panthers are a subspecies of mountain lion — the only one remaining in the Eastern U.S. Also known as cougars or pumas, the big cats’ historic range once extended from Florida to Louisiana, along the Gulf and up to Arkansas. Now, wild Florida panthers can only be found in the tip of southwestern Florida. Hunting and habitat loss decimated the once-healthy populations, and the species was among the first to be added to the U.S. endangered species list in 1973. At that time, fewer than 30 individuals remained, and many thought they were a lost cause, Ward said. A massive, groundbreaking conservation effort involved the introduction of eight Texas mountain lions to breed with the native Florida population, which had become dangerously inbred. Five successfully did, injecting fresh genetic diversity into the population and saving them from the brink of extinction. This effort catapulted the Florida panther to the main conservation stage, and the charismatic cat became the state animal in 1982 by overwhelming vote of students. So, does this success story have a happy ending? Not yet, Ward cautioned. Wildlife veterinarian Lara Cusack handles more kittens belonging to FP224. These young cats were measured and given immunity boosters while their mother was hunting away from the den. When panthers have space and protected habitats, their populations can grow. Only about one in three Florida panther kittens survives to adulthood. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society Today, there are roughly 200 individuals scattered in the wooded and swampy areas south of the Caloosahatchee River down to the Everglades. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in order to eat, mate and live, Florida panthers require large, contiguous lands to roam ‒ up to 200 square miles of territory per cat. This is particularly concerning given the current increases in development and continued loss of open ranches and lands. “Return of the Florida Panther” is featured in the April 2021 issue of National Geographic. National Geographic Society Which brings us to this latest NatGeo feature. Throughout, the message is clear: save our wild and open spaces to save the Florida panthers; save the cats to save Florida, as we know it. Ward’s image of a young female mother and her kitten at Babcock Ranch Preserve renewed hope that the cats are pushing north to extend their territory. This is a critical move if the species is to survive. The image proved that breeding females and kittens ‒ the future of the population ‒ were indeed moving beyond their current, limited lands. Ward told the Weekly, “The most important image is the picture on Babcock Ranch Preserve of a female panther with kittens. She’s significant because she’s the first female documented north of the Caloosahatchee, which has been the northern border of panther region.” Ward added, “This sets up an awesome opportunity where the panther can go from a south Florida conservation challenge to a statewide conservation opportunity and hopefully inspire Floridians to save enough of these wild places for the panthers to reclaim their natural territories.” The first female panther spotted north of the Caloosahatchee River since 1973 pauses on Babcock Ranch Preserve with her kitten. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society As more people move to Florida, continued development and new housing threaten the remaining panther habitat. According to NatGeo, loss of land increases cat-on-cat territorial spats and car collisions — the two leading causes of panther mortality. Roughly 25 cats are struck each year by vehicles, “a reflection of how development and road construction threaten the species at a time when roughly 900 people are moving to Florida every day,” the story says. Ward captured this tense border battle between humans and nature with images of a young male panther stepping through barbed wire and another, captured with infrared cameras, walking under a highway overpass at night. On top of these threats, scientists are studying a neurological condition called feline leuk-myelopathy, which is affecting Florida’s panthers and bobcats. Animals suffering can have trouble walking, become paralyzed, starve and even die. So, what can we do? Laurent Lollis and other cowboys round up cattle at Buck Island Ranch in south-central Florida. Such ranches take up nearly one-sixth of Florida’s landmass but are imperiled by development. The survival of the panther and the success of the Florida Wildlife Corridor depend on the preservation of these agricultural lands. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society “To protect panthers, wildlife corridors ‒ including ranches, pastures, orchards, etc. ‒ need to be preserved, not turned into subdivisions/parking lots,” tweeted NatGeo reporter Douglas Main, who authored NatGeo’s feature piece. “This will help the bevy of animals that depend on the same lands, such as alligators, bears & more. And it will help humans too.” Conservationists have created a patchwork of protected public and private lands throughout Florida’s interior called the Florida Wildlife Corridor. They hope this will encourage the panther to keep moving north. Ranchers, a vanishing breed themselves, own much of this private land. Popularly pitted against the panther, Florida’s cowboys are actually, generally, in support of its conservation. Both share the “common enemy” of development, particularly new subdivisions. Every day, ranchers are offered big bucks for their land, without which they and panthers cease to exist. “The land is still there,” Ward said. “We have a moment right now where we can choose to conserve it. There’s hundreds of landowners on the list that are open to conservation as an alternative to development. They’re waiting on conservation easements and to sell their land for national parks. We need to meet this opportunity.” The presence of Florida panther kittens is a hopeful sign for species recovery. CARLTON WARD JR. A male panther leaps over a creek at Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Florida. The rarely seen cats, which number only around 200, are reclaiming territory north of the Everglades, but their habitat is threatened by encroaching suburban sprawl. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society A panther creeps through a fence at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, emerging from nearby ranchland. The sanctuary is too small to support even one adult male panther, which may require up to 200 square miles of territory for roaming and hunting. While a male’s territory can overlap a little with that of another male, the solitary cats generally avoid each other. CARLTON WARD JR. / National Geographic Society The photographer closed with his favorite thing about the animal he followed for thousands of miles through Florida’s swamps and backcountry: their perseverance. “This animal exists against all odds,” he said. “We have one of the fastest growing, most populated states in the country. We have the watery landscape of the Everglades. And we still have the last large cat in the eastern United States ‒ right here. That’s their ability to scratch out an existence on the margins, on the edge of development and landscapes criss-crossed by roads.” He added, “We can help them and ourselves. Florida has a chance to be a national leader here, if we choose to protect these places while they’re still here.” Subscribe To Our Newsletter Get Keys Weekly delivered right to your inbox along with a daily dose of Keys News. Tiff Duong is a self-made mermaid who loves all things cheesy (romantic and dairy) and thrives in the 3 am hour. She believes in leaving it all on the field and has never met a (mis)adventure she didn't love.	In the April 2021 NatGeo issue, the story unfolds through maps, timelines, words and photos. They follow the path of the panther across the state and through time. It took veteran explorer and photographer Carlton Ward Jr. five years to capture the defining photographic body of work on these elusive, endangered animals. A proud eighth-generation Floridian, he knows that the panther’s future is necessarily intertwined with our own. He sat down with Keys Weekly to share what he learned. “The lead image for the story, a panther jumping across a log around a flooded section of swamp, that picture took two years to capture,” he laughed. National Geographic photographer and explorer Carlton Ward Jr. has trekked more than 2,000 miles through Florida to bring awareness to land conservation needs. CARLTON WARD JR. Florida panthers are a subspecies of mountain lion — the only one remaining in the Eastern U.S. Also known as cougars or pumas, the big cats’ historic range once extended from Florida to Louisiana, along the Gulf and up to Arkansas. Now, wild Florida panthers can only be found in the tip of southwestern Florida. Hunting and habitat loss decimated the once-healthy populations, and the species was among the first to be added to the U.S. endangered species list in 1973. At that time, fewer than 30 individuals remained, and many thought they were a lost cause, Ward said. A massive, groundbreaking conservation effort involved the introduction of eight Texas mountain lions to breed with the native Florida population, which had become dangerously inbred. Five successfully did, injecting fresh genetic diversity into the population and saving them from the brink of extinction. This effort catapulted the Florida panther to the main conservation stage, and the charismatic cat became the state animal in 1982 by overwhelming vote of students. So, does this success story have a happy ending? Not yet, Ward cautioned. Wildlife veterinarian Lara Cusack handles more kittens belonging to FP224.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://colossal.com/what-is-disruptive-conservation/	What Is Disruptive Conservation? \| Colossal	What Is Disruptive Conservation? Learn about breakthrough technologies that can re-balance the Earth and reverse climate change. Plus, benefits and examples of progress. BY Sara Ord Species and ecosystems are being lost due to human causation. Reversing the degradation of ecosystems is possible through disruptive conservation. We explain how breakthrough bioscience and genetic engineering solutions will bring the world back into balance. Inside This Article: What Is Disruptive Conservation? Disruptive conservation is the ethical use of next-generation technologies to accelerate animal and ecosystem preservation. The goal is to return near-extinct or extinct species to their original habitats so they can help restore ecosystems and reverse the effects of climate change. The name disruptive conservation originates from the term disruptive innovation, first coined in Clayton M. Christensen’s 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Like disruption innovation, disruptive conservation is about the creation of paradigm shifts to solve big problems. One of the biggest challenges facing our world is rapid species extinction and related environmental degradation. The root cause of the problem is human activity, and the resulting damage is profound. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports that 38% of all species are on the verge of extinction today and that 50% of the 5,491 mammal species on Earth are in decline—20% are in danger of complete extinction. Disruptive conservative science can turn back the clock to reverse and prevent the loss of biodiversity by using technologies such as: Species Rewilding: These conservation approaches focus on restoring or protecting natural processes and wilderness areas. Rewilding may include safeguarding or reintroducing the species that influence ecosystems. Without the presence of these species, the ecosystem is dramatically different or ceases to exist. Species Restoration: The goal is to increase the population of endangered species in a specific environment. Species De-extinction:De-extinction technologies purposely generate organisms that resemble or are the recreation of extinct species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines restrict proxies for extinct species when re-populations of an extinct species are central to an ecosystem for conservation purposes. Genome Editing: Also known as genome engineering or gene editing, this type of genetic engineering inserts, deletes, modifies or replaces DNA in the genome of a living organism. CRISPR is the gene-editing technique that enables de-extinction. Selective Breeding: This process uses animal and plant breeding to develop specific traits by choosing which plant or animal males and females will reproduce sexually. New approaches that accelerate the protection of endangered animals and ecosystems are essential. “Traditional conservation and climate change efforts are critical, but they aren’t enough,” stresses Ben Lamm, Co-Founder and CEO of Colossal. “Experts must collaborate across fields and disciplines to build new, breakthrough solutions.” Examples of Disruptive Conservation Examples of the high-impact benefits of disruptive conservation are visible worldwide. Mindful restoration, rewilding, and de-extinction of fauna positively impact flora and their ecosystems. Disruptive conservation projects at work today include: Sumatran Rhino (Dicerorhinus Sumatrensis)/Sumatra: The only two-horned rhino left in existence, the Sumatran Rhino dwindled to just 80 individuals due to illegal wildlife trade, habitat loss, and lack of government protections. The Sumatran rhino has a fighting chance at survival through relocation and focused efforts to promote breeding in safe environments. The outlook is increasingly positive. Genetics help with de-extinction efforts to accelerate the conservation of this megafauna by continually sequencing its genetic code. With a complete reference genome, the total loss of the species is preventable. Florida Panther (Puma Concolor Cougar)/Florida: The only breeding population of puma in the eastern United States, the Florida Panther was listed as an endangered species in 1967 by the Department of the Interior. Today, there are multiple conservation measures in place. The panthers now roam safely on a contiguous range of habitat—potentially as much as 2,500,000 acres in private and public lands. Biologists use selective breeding with Texas pumas to maintain a healthy level of genetic variation in Florida panthers across their historic range. These and other techniques have raised the Florida Panther population to 200 individuals. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela Nigripes)/Wyoming: Every black-footed ferret descends from seven individual ferrets, creating genetic challenges to species recovery. On Dec. 10, 2020, efforts to increase genetic diversity and disease resistance leaped ahead with the birth of a female ferret generated by cloning. Elizabeth Ann came from the frozen cells of Willa, who was alive more than three decades ago. When Elizabeth Ann reproduces successfully, she will provide necessary and unique genetic diversity to the species. Restoring the black-footed ferret is the first successful cloning project of a native endangered species in North America. North American Plains Bison (Bison Bison)/12 States in North America: In 2008, the Department ofthe Interior issued the Bison Conservation Initiative, which manages genetic diversity and integrity across conservation herds in multiple states by relocating individuals and groups. Wide-ranging bison herds are maintained and established in areas where they fulfill their role as ecosystem engineers. The Initiative’s final goal is to restore cultural connections to bison, especially among Native Americans. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (Canis Lupus)/National Yellowstone Park: Early in the 20th century, few wolves remained in Yellowstone National Park. The effects on the ecosystem were dramatic. Elk were no longer forced to look out for predators and became abnormally sedentary. They fed on the willow trees beavers use to make dams. When the beavers ran out of their required wood supply and moved to other areas, rivers became clogged with fallen trees and other debris. The lack of beaver dams reduced fish breeding pools, and the lack of natural buffering led to devastating run-off. In 1995, the Yellowstone Wolf Project reintroduced wolf populations, igniting a slew of chain reactions. Elk had to run for their lives as they naturally do, driving them away from the willow trees the beavers use for construction. This action brought the return of the beavers and their dams. Today, the park ecosystem is rejuvenated and healthier in all aspects, from fish and birds to vegetation and water quality. Eurasian Beaver (Castor Fiber) United Kingdom and the Netherlands: These large herbivores are ecosystem engineers. From prehistoric times, beavers played a vital part in the U.K. and Netherlands ecosystem until they were hunted to extinction in the 16th century. Their extinction led to the loss of bogs, mires, and lakes, and diverse wetlands that bring enormous benefits to birds, fish, invertebrates, and mammalian species. They help reduce downstream flooding, increase water retention and clean water. In 2015, a five-year trial reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver began with breeding and dispersing two family groups in the U.K. and Netherlands. The trial helped restore their ecosystems. Woolly Mammoth (Mammuthus Primigenius)/Eventual Return to Arctic Tundra: George Church and a team of world-renowned genetic scientists at Colossal are pioneering a practical, working model of de-extinction using CRISPR genome editing. The project’s goal is to return the Woolly Mammoth to the tundra. The mammoth’s instinctual activity will stir up the icy surfaces of the landscape, stomping out thin, low-oxygen trees and exposing healthy, carbon-trapping grasses. This work will reestablish an ecosystem filled with grasslands to prevent the thaw and release stored greenhouse gases in the arctic permafrost. With light-reflecting grasslands covering the arctic land surface, snow won’t melt as quickly. The result is an ecosystem that can naturally defend against climate change. The Woolly Mammoth de-extinction project has already made great strides. DNA has been inserted from the mammoth genome into Asian Elephant cells using CRISPR genome engineering. Today, multiple genes are rewritten into Asian Elephant cell lines, generating cells closer to those of the mammoth with each decisive edit. The team is genetically engineering mutations for extra hair growth, mammoth hemoglobin, and fat production into the cell lines. Along with the prospect of decelerating arctic permafrost melt, the de-extinction project will also help protect modern elephants from extinction. For example, a dangerous strain of herpes is affecting the health of Asian elephants. From the Asian elephant sequenced genome, Colossal is looking to create a version of the virus that can be cultured—the first step in developing a vaccine or treatment. This project is one of the first synthetic biology projects to study and treat a wildlife disease. The Colossal mammoth de-extinction effort is on course to generate near-term benefits to Asian elephant conservation. The Benefits of Disruptive Conservation There are many benefits of disruptive conservation, from accelerating species preservation to restoring vital ecosystems. These benefits’ main attribute is that they deliver scalable solutions to help the Earth reach a healthier state. A 2021 Frontiers in Conservation Science report, Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future, references over 150 studies detailing the planet’s environmental challenges. The scientists found “The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its life forms–including humanity–is so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.” Disruptive conservation offers countermeasures to the catastrophic loss of biodiversity and environmental devastation currently underway. “Traditional conservation efforts, while vital, have been slowly losing ground. Species de-extinction and preservation through gene-editing technology represents an exciting and tangible new movement in science and conservation, one we hope catches the public’s eye and opens doors to a new generation of molecularly-inspired conservation capable of gaining ground and reversing loss,” explains George Church, Ph.D., Co-Founder of Colossal The interrelated benefits of disruptive conservation include: Wildlife Conservation: According to the World Animal Foundation,one-half of all species could become extinct by 2050. As species numbers wane, disruptive conservation technologies can improve genetic diversity, strengthen numbers, and protect species and habitats. Bringing Back Lost Species (De-extinction): Humans are responsible for rendering many large megafauna extinct. Bringing species back ethically, as in the Woolly Mammoth de-extinction project that uses genetics, restores the ecosystems they inhabited. Decelerate Climate Change: Protecting or regenerating animal species and biodiversity can put the brakes on climate change and global warming. Boost Biodiversity: Reinvigorating ecosystems with the reintroduction of species that support the renewal of flora and fauna. Scalability:Reintroducing keystone species that are vital to maintaining an ecosystem is more scalable than traditional conservation programs. These species can be relocated to these environments or generated by de-extinction technology. Vital Ecosystem Conservation: New conservation technologies foster an ecosystem that can maintain its defenses against climate change. The Future of Disruptive Conservation While there have been decades of groundwork laid for disruptive conservation, new technologies are on the horizon. The future of this practice will involve research and development in genetic engineering, genetic reconciliation, and species extension. Future disruptive conservation research and development areas include: E-conservation: Conservation needs support from multiple communities. New technologies will play a role in making faster connections that foster conservation research, development, and solutions. Using the Internet of Things to transfer and collect data, blockchain to move funds, and other emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, DNA barcoding, rapid sequencers, and bots will speed up the development, collaboration, and funding needed to take disruptive conservation to the next level. Epigenetics: Epigenetics is the study of the changes in inheritable characteristics that occur without DNA sequence alterations. Epigenetic variation links a genome to the environment, provides the required information on organisms’ ecological background, and is useful in conservation biology projects. Non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to express themselves differently. Cellular and physiological phenotypic trait effects may be a part of normal development or external or environmental factors. These epigenetic changes can endure through cell divisions for the life of the cell or last for multiple generations, even though the underlying DNA sequence of the organism does not change. Genetic Engineering: CRISPR is an engineered cellular technology that scientists use for recognizing and cutting a specific code of DNA inside the nucleus. First observed in bacteria, CRISPR technology occurs naturally. Scientists have been able to re-engineer it to work in eukaryotic cells (meaning cells with a nucleus and organelles, all enclosed in a plasma membrane). These are the types of cells humans and animals possess. In mammalian cells, such as an elephant or a Woolly Mammoth, CRISPR works with an enzyme called Cas9 to modify genes. A CRISPR/Cas9 complex will use a single guide RNA from CRISPR to guide and recognize a specific sequence of DNA, where the Cas9 molecule will cleave those strands that complement the CRISPR sequence. Cas9 allows for the reinsertion of the laboratory-engineered DNA to create favorable traits. Gene Drive Systems: A gene drive is a phenomenon that often occurs naturally when a particular gene gets passed down with a greater probability than the usual 50%. The occurrence often happens naturally. Synthetic biology scientists are probing the possibility of exploiting gene drives to disseminate genetically engineered changes over many generations through wild populations. Genetic Reconciliation: Genetic reconciliation is the act of preserving the genetic information of species with next-generation sequencing technologies. The goal of genetic reconciliation is to produce high-quality genome assemblies of species that are categorized as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered by the IUCN. Genetically backing up species contributes towards the preservation of species genetic information so that they are not lost forever. Species Extension: Species extension allows species that are at risk of extinction to be given a new set of tools from their extinct relatives so that they can survive in new environments. Via species extension, processes involving the evolution of adaptations to different climates and terrain can be expedited. For species that are on the brink of extinction, slow to evolve due to limited numbers and long lifespans, and are running out of habitable terrain, there are very limited technologies that can aid them. Colossal is developing a species extension pipeline that can be utilized to equip targeted species with adaptations discovered in the genes of their ancestors. “Beyond the mammoth, Colossal is productizing the ability to use CRISPR easily and unlocking the power of synthetic biology. That’s the power humanity needs to stave off the worst of climate change and to adequately adapt to the effects we can’t stop. Scaling biotech will fuel an explosion of solutions in food creation, materials and chemical production, and even geo-engineering,” states Michael Luciani of Climate Capital. Colossal Is at the Forefront of Disruptive Conservation Colossal focuses on the de-extinction and eventual rewilding of the Woolly Mammoth. This resurrection will foster an ecosystem equipped to face humanity’s adverse effects on vital ecosystems. The laboratory is on track to bring back the Woolly Mammoth by 2026. “Bringing back the Woolly Mammoth and extinct species is an exciting breakthrough, but this technology can also help preserve the species we have,” notes Church. “We want to shine a spotlight on real, tangible results CRISPR offers and spark a renewed passion for conservation.” CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology enables this profound project to move forward. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than other existing genome editing methods. “Sharing a de-extinction vision with George has allowed Colossal to build an aggressive path towards thoughtful disruptive conservation to drive ethical species restoration and healthier ecosystems,” Lamm adds. Want to Learn More About Disruptive Conservation? There is so much to do to restore lost ecosystems. Colossal has accepted humanity’s duty to make a better world, solve for future economies and biological necessities of the human condition through cutting-edge science and technologies. The Woolly Mammoth de-extinction project is eminently doable. By creating life to preserve life, we are concerned not just with the next generation but those who will be here hundreds or thousands of years from now. Let’s make a better world together. Join our newsletter. Let's make a better world together. Send me newsletter updates. Enter Email After signing up for our newsletter, you may also receive occasional surveys and special topical emails from Colossal via email. You understand and agree that Colossal may use your information in accordance with our Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the Unsubscribe button at the bottom of any email you receive from Colossal. After signing up for our newsletter, you may also receive occasional surveys and special topical emails from Colossal via email. You understand and agree that Colossal may use your information in accordance with our Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the Unsubscribe button at the bottom of any email you receive from Colossal.	Disruptive conservation projects at work today include: Sumatran Rhino (Dicerorhinus Sumatrensis)/Sumatra: The only two-horned rhino left in existence, the Sumatran Rhino dwindled to just 80 individuals due to illegal wildlife trade, habitat loss, and lack of government protections. The Sumatran rhino has a fighting chance at survival through relocation and focused efforts to promote breeding in safe environments. The outlook is increasingly positive. Genetics help with de-extinction efforts to accelerate the conservation of this megafauna by continually sequencing its genetic code. With a complete reference genome, the total loss of the species is preventable. Florida Panther (Puma Concolor Cougar)/Florida: The only breeding population of puma in the eastern United States, the Florida Panther was listed as an endangered species in 1967 by the Department of the Interior. Today, there are multiple conservation measures in place. The panthers now roam safely on a contiguous range of habitat—potentially as much as 2,500,000 acres in private and public lands. Biologists use selective breeding with Texas pumas to maintain a healthy level of genetic variation in Florida panthers across their historic range. These and other techniques have raised the Florida Panther population to 200 individuals. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela Nigripes)/Wyoming: Every black-footed ferret descends from seven individual ferrets, creating genetic challenges to species recovery. On Dec. 10, 2020, efforts to increase genetic diversity and disease resistance leaped ahead with the birth of a female ferret generated by cloning. Elizabeth Ann came from the frozen cells of Willa, who was alive more than three decades ago. When Elizabeth Ann reproduces successfully, she will provide necessary and unique genetic diversity to the species. Restoring the black-footed ferret is the first successful cloning project of a native endangered species in North America.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/florida-panther	The Florida Panther \| U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service	Search The Florida Panther Written By In 50 years, the endangered Florida panther has made a long journey back from the brink of extinction. The population has rebounded from an estimated low of 10 animals to over 200 animals since it was put on the first Endangered species list in 1967. Now the panther is at a crossroads. Panthers, historically, roamed the entire southeastern United States. Development badly fractured their habitat. Hunting nearly eliminated them; genetic defects affected their health and survival. Eight female panthers were brought in from Texas in the 1990s and released in Florida to breed. It worked. “Introducing the female Texas pumas into the population increased panther numbers, genetic diversity, and survival rates,” said David Shindle, Florida panther recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A certified wildlife biologist, Shindle has made the Florida panther his career for more than 20 years. At this juncture, he said, the panther must expand its range northward. That’s why, when a camera captured a female panther in 2017 leading her kittens north of the Caloosahatchee River -- for the first time in more than 40 years -- it was considered a milestone. “Increasing the range and size of the population is the progress of recovery,” Shindle said. Panther kittens, photo taken in 2004. Photo by David Shindle, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Panthers need a lot of space. Males claim 200-square-mile territories and will sometimes fight other males to death if their territories overlap. As their numbers rise, urban sprawl hems them in. Development, associated with an estimated 1,000 people moving to Florida every day, consumes and fragments panther habitat in southwestern Florida. It narrows escape routes from sea-level rise. With too little space, panthers may again succumb to genetic disorders and diseases. The Caloosahatchee River flows west from Lake Okeechobee to Fort Myers and cuts the state in half, which discourages panthers from crossing to the north. It’s mostly rural, open land north of the river with privately owned properties and a mosaic of federal, state and conservation lands that together create critical corridors for panther recovery. Yet new subdivisions generate more roads and highways. Vehicles kill more panthers than anything else. Last year, 21 died by automobile. The year before: 22. This year, already, eight panthers have been killed by cars. Researchers and designers with the Florida Department of Transportation, the University of Central Florida, and the University of Florida are modeling future roadway crossings for panthers to be able to expand north. They use information collected in southwestern Florida – types of roads, where they cross, where they were hit, prey availability, habitat selection – to generate future crossing patterns further north. When a potential crossing is identified, cameras are set to verify the presence of wildlife. Wildlife crossings include bridges, underpasses, box culverts, drainage pipes and shelves built under bridges. Fencing funnel panthers and other wildlife into the crossing and out of the roadway. Currently, Florida Department of Transportation is building the Western Green Swamp crossing east of I-4 and SR 557, to be finished next year. Projects in the design phase awaiting construction funds are the I-4 wildlife overpass and SR 33 at Saddle Creek, US 27 near Lake Livingston, and the US 27 Venus Wildlife crossing. Construction of these crossings is tentatively scheduled within five years. Crossings the department has identified for design include one at SR 29 north of SR 78 and SR 66 south of Highlands Hammock. If panthers can avoid Tampa and St. Petersburg, swim the Caloosahatchee River, cross state roads 27, 80, 70, 60 and Interstate 4, and stay away from Orlando, they will have a fighting chance. Federal, state and conservation lands will protect them as the habitat is managed for wildlife. Ranches comprise much of this rural land, where conservation easements protect excellent panther habitat. Military installations at Avon Park and Camp Blanding provide safe spaces too. A panther uses the Bear Island Wildlife Crossing that connects Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge with Big Cypress National Preserve in 2019. Photo by USFWS The Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) have worked through the years with nonprofit organizations and other government agencies to create conservation corridors to expand the panthers’ range, increase their numbers and help them migrate. FWC is the lead agency on the research and management of the Florida panther. “It can be done with the green infrastructure that we have,” said Elizabeth Fleming, Senior Florida Representative for Defenders of Wildlife. Fleming has worked with the Service and the Panther Recovery Implementation Team for almost a decade. Her nonprofit has been involved in Florida panther advocacy protection before it was even listed as endangered. She is hopeful. “We have had great success, resulting in a much healthier, growing population. Now the success of our conservation efforts is meeting the barriers of habitat, traffic, and colliding with the human population,” Fleming said. “We need education to expand acceptance for panthers and to reduce conflict.” Shindle said the goal is to have a viable population that can survive on its own and eventually recover to the point it can be removed from the Endangered Species List. Cary Lightsey is one of many generational ranchers who has placed land in conservation easements. “That is what everyone is striving for,” said Mark Lotz, a FWC panther biologist, he has worked on the panther recovery team for 27 years, dealing extensively with landowners. As the population has increased, so too have depredation complaints about panthers – up to a high of 62 in 2017. He adds, though, that there have been fewer complaints in recent years and instances of human-panther interactions have been infrequent. Cary Lightsey is a sixth-generation rancher who believes we can share the land with the panther. “We need to protect the panther. It’s part of the balance of nature,” he said. “It’s part of Florida and I don’t want to lose it.” For the last eight years, Lightsey has watched a female panther and her twins in his citrus grove on Tiger Lake Ranch. She returns every year and has twins. When the kittens lose their spots, they leave. Lightsey has put 92 percent of his land in conservation easements. “I don’t want it to be developed, ever,” he said. “I want to stay family ranchers, and my whole family feels the same way.” Recently, he took two of his granddaughters to the Polk County Commission meeting to propose a tax for conservation easements. He noted that 58,000 people had moved into the county in just the last year and development follows right behind them. “It passed. Everyone voted for it,” he said. The Service’s Shindle, when he does outreach presentations, tells folks to find common ground. "Ranching families want to preserve their heritage for future generations and the panther needs these working ranchlands to survive. To save the panther, you need to save the rancher," he said. State land acquisition programs such as Florida Forever and the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program preserve panther habitat through conservation easements. Federal programs help acquire conservation easements and preserve agricultural lands with wildlife values. These programs provide matching funding for landscape-scale conservation projects with other governmental and non-profit organizations. The Florida Wildlife Corridor Act that passed last year specifies a network of green spaces for wildlife and the panther that encompasses 18 million acres, with 10 million protected federal, state, local and conservation lands. The legislation provides some funding to purchase conservation easements or to acquire land. The 2070 Trend map represents the land use pattern most likely to occur if the 2070 population projections are met and counties continue to develop at the 2010 gross development densities. Developed lands (2070 Trend scenarios) 11,648,000 acres or 33.72% of lands. Data Source: FNAI, NRCS, ESRI Enhancing conservation corridors could provide protected habitat for 74 federally and state listed threatened and endangered species and many other species of native wildlife. It could provide perpetual habitat protection, improving connectivity and reducing habitat fragmentation which can assist species adapt to the effects of climate change climate change Climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. Though there have been previous periods of climatic change, since the mid-20th century humans have had an unprecedented impact on Earth's climate system and caused change on a global scale. Learn more about climate change and the threat of development. With an established corridor the Florida panther can head northward on its journey to open lands and away from extinction. Footer Menu - External Links You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.	Search The Florida Panther Written By In 50 years, the endangered Florida panther has made a long journey back from the brink of extinction. The population has rebounded from an estimated low of 10 animals to over 200 animals since it was put on the first Endangered species list in 1967. Now the panther is at a crossroads. Panthers, historically, roamed the entire southeastern United States. Development badly fractured their habitat. Hunting nearly eliminated them; genetic defects affected their health and survival. Eight female panthers were brought in from Texas in the 1990s and released in Florida to breed. It worked. “Introducing the female Texas pumas into the population increased panther numbers, genetic diversity, and survival rates,” said David Shindle, Florida panther recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A certified wildlife biologist, Shindle has made the Florida panther his career for more than 20 years. At this juncture, he said, the panther must expand its range northward. That’s why, when a camera captured a female panther in 2017 leading her kittens north of the Caloosahatchee River -- for the first time in more than 40 years -- it was considered a milestone. “Increasing the range and size of the population is the progress of recovery,” Shindle said. Panther kittens, photo taken in 2004. Photo by David Shindle, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Panthers need a lot of space. Males claim 200-square-mile territories and will sometimes fight other males to death if their territories overlap. As their numbers rise, urban sprawl hems them in. Development, associated with an estimated 1,000 people moving to Florida every day, consumes and fragments panther habitat in southwestern Florida. It narrows escape routes from sea-level rise. With too little space, panthers may again succumb to genetic disorders and diseases.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://www.tampabay.com/environment/breeding-florida-panthers-with-cougars-saved-the-state-animal-from-extinction-new-study-says-20190719/	Breeding Florida panthers with cougars saved the state animal from ...	Breeding Florida panthers with cougars saved the state animal from extinction, new study says Roy McBride inspects the teeth on a sedated panther. McBride, a renowned puma hunter, went to Texas in 1995 to capture female cougars and bring them back to Florida in hopes they would breed with male Florida panthers. The experiment worked. [Courtesy of Tim Donovan, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] No more than 30 Florida panthers were left, and several suffered from genetic defects caused by inbreeding. Desperate, state officials tried something no one ever had before: Bringing in eight female Texas cougars, a close cousin of the panther, to breed with the remaining males. A new scientific study, being published Monday, says that genetic rescue of the Florida panther has been a ringing success, and has not produced the monstrous hybrid that some feared. Not only did the rescue save the state animal but it continues providing benefits to the population five generations of cats later, according to University of Florida professor Madan K. Oli, one of the study's authors. "The population really was doomed to extinction" without the genetic rescue, Oli said Friday. Now about 200 panthers roam what's left of Florida's wild places, and they are largely free of defects. The study, being published in a journal called Wildlife Monographs, says that the authors' review of panther genetic and population data provides "persuasive evidence" that bringing in the cougars "prevented the demise of the Florida panther and restored demographic vigor to the population." If the state wants to avoid panthers slipping back into the same genetic trouble they were in 24 years ago, the study says, then Florida should bring in about five more cats from another region every 20 or so years. That's assuming, of course, there is enough habitat left to accommodate the arrival of such a large group of apex predators. The study's authors strongly recommend the state follow up with continuous monitoring of the panthers' genetic stability to watch for signs of backsliding, Oli said. That way wildlife officials will know the right time to bring in more Texas cougars "We should probably not wait until it's too late," he said. Panthers were included on the first federal endangered species list in 1967. When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, some Florida wildlife officials contended it was time to take panthers off the list because they were extinct. An environmental group, the World Wildlife Fund, hired a laconic, Stetson-wearing tracker from Texas named Roy McBride to search for signs they still existed. He found one, a scrawny female, and signs that there were others — but not many. With McBride's help, state biologists began capturing the remaining panthers and putting radio collars on them to track their movements from the air. A mishap during a capture in 1983 killed one of the few remaining panthers, leading to a decision to begin sending a veterinarian along with the capture team. Keep up with Tampa Bay’s top headlines Subscribe to our free DayStarter newsletter We’ll deliver the latest news and information you need to know every morning. Loading... You’re all signed up! Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started. The veterinarian, Melody Roelke, discovered the panthers were suffering from serious genetic defects caused by inbreeding. Some cats had holes in their hearts, so their heartbeat sounded like an off-kilter dishwasher. Sometimes one or both of the males' testicles failed to descend, leaving them unable to reproduce. Normally the way to save such a rapidly disappearing species is to launch a captive breeding program. But because of the genetic defects, that would not work for the Florida panther. That's why biologists turned to bringing in a close relative, female Texas cougars. Their rationale was that back before the South became settled, the Florida panther had ranged far outside the boundaries of the state and crossbred with its Texas counterpart back then. To save the panther, state wildlife officials dispatched McBride to the Texas mountain country where he grew up. Working alone, McBride pursued the female cougars while riding a mule that he blindfolded so it wouldn't bolt when it encountered one of the big cats. He said in a recent interview that he caught about 20 cougars, but only eight met all the necessary requirements for the experiment. Those are the ones he flew back to Florida to be released into the wild. Five of the eight Texas cougars successfully bred with male panthers and produced healthy offspring, sparking a panther population rebound that continues today. Because of the success in Florida, scientists in other parts of the world are considering similar genetic rescues with other nearly vanished species, such as wolves in Michigan and possums in Australia. As the results of the new study show, "it is a viable option," Oli said. One irony about the study: It's dedicated to the memory of a biologist named David Maehr, who led the state's panther capture team from 1985 to 1994 and produced reams of scientific papers. Maehr, who in 2008 died in a plane crash while conducting bear research, was a vocal and persistent opponent of the plan to bring in cougars from Texas, arguing that the panthers had no genetic problems. "If he knew then what we know now," Oli said, "he might have thought differently."	's authors. "The population really was doomed to extinction" without the genetic rescue, Oli said Friday. Now about 200 panthers roam what's left of Florida's wild places, and they are largely free of defects. The study, being published in a journal called Wildlife Monographs, says that the authors' review of panther genetic and population data provides "persuasive evidence" that bringing in the cougars "prevented the demise of the Florida panther and restored demographic vigor to the population. " If the state wants to avoid panthers slipping back into the same genetic trouble they were in 24 years ago, the study says, then Florida should bring in about five more cats from another region every 20 or so years. That's assuming, of course, there is enough habitat left to accommodate the arrival of such a large group of apex predators. The study's authors strongly recommend the state follow up with continuous monitoring of the panthers' genetic stability to watch for signs of backsliding, Oli said. That way wildlife officials will know the right time to bring in more Texas cougars "We should probably not wait until it's too late," he said. Panthers were included on the first federal endangered species list in 1967. When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, some Florida wildlife officials contended it was time to take panthers off the list because they were extinct. An environmental group, the World Wildlife Fund, hired a laconic, Stetson-wearing tracker from Texas named Roy McBride to search for signs they still existed. He found one, a scrawny female, and signs that there were others — but not many. With McBride's help, state biologists began capturing the remaining panthers and putting radio collars on them to track their movements from the air. A mishap during a capture in 1983 killed one of the few remaining panthers, leading to a decision to begin sending a veterinarian along with the capture team.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://news.wgcu.org/environment/2014-08-26/as-the-florida-panther-rebounds-ranchers-face-increasing-cattle-loss	As The Florida Panther Rebounds, Ranchers Face Increasing Cattle ...	As The Florida Panther Rebounds, Ranchers Face Increasing Cattle Loss The endangered Florida Panther is experiencing a slight population rebound. While this is good news for recovery efforts, it’s becoming a problem for ranchers in Southwest Florida. That’s because panthers are killing off livestock such as cattle in large numbers, and ranchers are taking a financial hit. Charter Boat Captain Teddy Naftal has been living on the edge of the Picayune Strand State Forest in Naples for a couple years. His property is surrounded by sprawling ranch land and a lot of animals. “Look there’s a peacock here,” Naftal said while pointing to a bird walking across a pathway on his property. “We also have bears in and out of the yard daily. I see a lot of bobcats back and forth. I have deer come through once in a while.” Credit Ashley Lopez / WGCU / WGCU Teddy Naftal's small herd of cattle. Naftal said he’s used to seeing wildlife. In fact, it’s part of the reason he moved here. Naftal is a hunter. He said he also wanted to move to a property where he could keep a couple animals, mostly for tax purposes, but animals are part of the problem now. “There are turkeys here now and then, but mostly cats,” he said. “They are taking over and they are taking all the animals away from us.” Naftal’s talking about panthers. More specifically, the endangered Florida Panther. A couple decades ago, it was on the brink of extinction. In the 90s, there were less than 30 panthers roaming the state. That’s why biologists bred them with Texas Cougars, which are genetically identical to Florida panthers. The breeding worked. Right now, there are about 160 in the wild. However, a lot has changed here in Southwest Florida since the 90s. This area may be a stronghold for the panther, but right outside their refuge, there is heavy development. Ken Warren, a spokesman for U.S Fish and Wildlife, said humans spent years encroaching on panther land and now the booming panther population is creating the opposite problem. “You see a lot of issues with panthers being hit by cars,” he explained. “In some cases panthers encroaching into neighborhoods where people are living and raising their families.” "Every calf that they punch out there is gone. I haven't been able to save one." --Teddy Naftal Panthers are also particularly drawn to areas like Naftal’s property. Panthers can roam relatively safely there and there’s cattle for them to feed on. Naftal said right now he has three calves and a bull. But, he’s losing new cows all the time. “Every calf that they punch out there is gone,” he said “I haven’t been able to save one. Definitely it’s getting worse. I’ve seen it in the last three years. It’s terrible.” Naftal said his daughter brought in several miniature goats a while back. But, he says they didn’t make it a week before getting picked off by panthers. Naftal said he has a few donkeys, too. He bought them to protect the calves. And they’ve been trying – mostly unsuccessfully— to keep the panthers at bay. Credit Ashley Lopez / WGCU / WGCU Pedro, the panther-fighting donkey. “My oldest one here, Pedro, he’s the male in the bunch,” he said. “He comes with scars all the time fighting off the panthers, or the cougars.” Even though Pedro is a little worse for wear and Naftal’s herd is getting smaller, he said larger cattle ranchers in the area have it much harder. In fact, around four years ago commercial and small-scale cattle ranchers started noticing a lot of their calves – and other livestock-- were missing. Ranchers suspected panthers. So, U.S. Fish and Wildlife paid for Caitlin Jacobs, a graduate student at the University of Florida, to conduct a study. Over two years, Jacobs ear-tagged and monitored 200 cows at two different ranches in the area. She said in that time one rancher lost about 5 percent of her calves to panthers. The other lost about point-5 percent. “They maybe even thought they were losing more,” Jacobs explained. “And they could be because this is a study done just over two years. So obviously factors can change. So, 5.3 percent is really just an estimate of what could potentially happen out there.” Now, state and federal officials have to figure out a way to make sure panthers don’t end up seriously hurting ranchers in Southwest Florida. "There's nothing whatsoever that we can do to dissuade the panthers from preying on our calves at this point." -- Florida Fish and Wildlife Commissioner and rancher Leisa Priddy, on federal regulations protecting the Florida Panther. Besides the fact that cattle is big business in Florida, Warren points out ranchlands have also helped panthers rebound. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Leisa Priddy owns a cattle ranch in the area. Her ranch was part of Jacobs’ study. She was the rancher that lost 5 percent of her calves. Priddy said dealing with panthers is a tricky situation mostly because of strict federal laws protecting panthers. “There’s nothing whatsoever that we can do to dissuade the panthers from preying on our calves at this point,” she said. State and federal officials are trying to figure out a way to offset the cost of living around panthers. State panther biologist Darrell Land said there’s a pilot program in the works that will pay ranchers for maintaining land in panther areas. Land said this would be better than paying ranchers for each animal killed by a panther because most of the time it’s hard to prove. Credit Teddy Naftal A picture of a Florida Panther Ted Naftal took with his phone near his property in Naples. Ultimately, though, both Land and Commissioner Priddy explain any program should be funded by the federal government since all Florida Panther regulations are federal. Land said that could be another hurdle. “We are very hopeful that that pilot program will become a more permanent type of program, but unfortunately that may mean that Congress will have to fund the program and right now they don’t play well together,” Land said. Warren said the goal is to have three viable populations with 240 panthers each before the recovery can be called a success, though they are re-evaluating that criteria. He also says they need to find a way to get the panther population to naturally migrate north, which could help Southwest Florida. While state and federal officials try to work out a plan, Naftal wants more regulations on the panthers. Specifically, he wants his animals protected from these predators.	As The Florida Panther Rebounds, Ranchers Face Increasing Cattle Loss The endangered Florida Panther is experiencing a slight population rebound. While this is good news for recovery efforts, it’s becoming a problem for ranchers in Southwest Florida. That’s because panthers are killing off livestock such as cattle in large numbers, and ranchers are taking a financial hit. Charter Boat Captain Teddy Naftal has been living on the edge of the Picayune Strand State Forest in Naples for a couple years. His property is surrounded by sprawling ranch land and a lot of animals. “Look there’s a peacock here,” Naftal said while pointing to a bird walking across a pathway on his property. “We also have bears in and out of the yard daily. I see a lot of bobcats back and forth. I have deer come through once in a while.” Credit Ashley Lopez / WGCU / WGCU Teddy Naftal's small herd of cattle. Naftal said he’s used to seeing wildlife. In fact, it’s part of the reason he moved here. Naftal is a hunter. He said he also wanted to move to a property where he could keep a couple animals, mostly for tax purposes, but animals are part of the problem now. “There are turkeys here now and then, but mostly cats,” he said. “They are taking over and they are taking all the animals away from us.” Naftal’s talking about panthers. More specifically, the endangered Florida Panther. A couple decades ago, it was on the brink of extinction. In the 90s, there were less than 30 panthers roaming the state. That’s why biologists bred them with Texas Cougars, which are genetically identical to Florida panthers. The breeding worked. Right now, there are about 160 in the wild. However, a lot has changed here in Southwest Florida since the 90s. This area may be a stronghold for the panther, but right outside their refuge, there is heavy development.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/out-of-state-mates-bring-florida-panthers-back-from-the-brink	Out-of-State Mates Bring Florida Panthers Back From the Brink ...	Out-of-State Mates Bring Florida Panthers Back From the Brink Newsletter The Florida panthers may be saved. They simply needed a little Lone Star assist. Fifteen years ago the big cats in Florida were in dire straits, doomed to probable extinction because of genetic inbreeding and dwindling numbers. Now, though, their population is on the upswing, thanks to a program that brought in eight females from a panther population in Texas to bolster the Florida cats. Scientists who studied the experiment report in the journal Science that it has worked: Both the numbers and the genetic diversity of Florida panthers improved drastically. Hybrids of the Florida cats and cousins of the same species from a wild-caught Texas population have twice the genetic variety and far fewer of the genetic defects that were known in Floridian panthers before the introduction, says geneticist [and study coauthor] Warren Johnson. [Science News] Though researchers said back in the 1990s that the Florida cats had a 95 percent chance of going extinct if humans did nothing to protect them, the Texas plan wasn't unanimously welcomed. Skepticism lingered that such a small infusion could save the panthers, and Science News reports . The cats are all the same species (in the west the big cat is more often called a puma, cougar, or mountain lion), but the geographically distinct populations have adapted to their very different environments. Conservationists working on the panther plan worried that muggy Florida isn't quite the same as arid West Texas, where the eight females came from. However, the big cats adjusted seamlessly, according to Roy McBride, the hunter who captured them in Texas back in 1995. "These Texas cats came out of a desert where it rains five inches a year to a swamp where it rains 60 inches. You can imagine the shock of coming off a desert mountain where there's no vegetation into a big wetland or swamp. But wherever we put them, they did well. They actually gained weight." And they bred with the dying Florida cats. [Houston Chronicle] Panther protectors cannot stand down from their vigilance, despite this success. The outside threats to the majestic predators, like dwindling habitat, are not going away. Study coauthor Stephen O’Brien says the current population numbers, though a marked improvement over 1995, are not enough to ensure the success of the cats. The population is currently only about 130—far lower than the goal of more than 500 needed to maintain a stable, healthy population—and has recently stopped increasing. Moreover, signs of inbreeding are starting to appear again, so the panther population would benefit from additional cougars. "It was only a temporary fix," O'Brien says. [ScienceNOW]	Out-of-State Mates Bring Florida Panthers Back From the Brink Newsletter The Florida panthers may be saved. They simply needed a little Lone Star assist. Fifteen years ago the big cats in Florida were in dire straits, doomed to probable extinction because of genetic inbreeding and dwindling numbers. Now, though, their population is on the upswing, thanks to a program that brought in eight females from a panther population in Texas to bolster the Florida cats. Scientists who studied the experiment report in the journal Science that it has worked: Both the numbers and the genetic diversity of Florida panthers improved drastically. Hybrids of the Florida cats and cousins of the same species from a wild-caught Texas population have twice the genetic variety and far fewer of the genetic defects that were known in Floridian panthers before the introduction, says geneticist [and study coauthor] Warren Johnson. [Science News] Though researchers said back in the 1990s that the Florida cats had a 95 percent chance of going extinct if humans did nothing to protect them, the Texas plan wasn't unanimously welcomed. Skepticism lingered that such a small infusion could save the panthers, and Science News reports . The cats are all the same species (in the west the big cat is more often called a puma, cougar, or mountain lion), but the geographically distinct populations have adapted to their very different environments. Conservationists working on the panther plan worried that muggy Florida isn't quite the same as arid West Texas, where the eight females came from. However, the big cats adjusted seamlessly, according to Roy McBride, the hunter who captured them in Texas back in 1995. "These Texas cats came out of a desert where it rains five inches a year to a swamp where it rains 60 inches. You can imagine the shock of coming off a desert mountain where there's no vegetation into a big wetland or swamp. But wherever we put them, they did well. They actually gained weight." And they bred with the dying Florida cats.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://mountainlion.org/us/florida/	Florida - Mountain Lion Foundation	Follow Lions Florida Florida’s Mountain Lions The Florida panther is the only known breeding population of mountain lions in the United States east of the Mississippi River. This tiny population survived early extermination by people due to the highly impenetrable Florida Everglades. It is also the only lion population to have federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. In the 1980s, the Florida panther population was down to only a few dozen inbred cats, and researchers released female lions from Texas to help bolster the population. Today, Florida panther numbers have rebounded to about 200 panthers, but their habitat continues to shrink; resulting in increased roadkill and fights to the death with other panthers for territory. Hope may be on the horizon for these cats with the Florida Wildlife Corridors Act, which aims to create safe passage for the cats to get from South Florida to Georgia where more abundant habitat lies. Learn more about current mountain lion policy, history, laws, and habitat. Status Florida FWC investigates disorder impacting panthers The FWC is investigating a disorder detected in some Florida panthers and bobcats. All the affected animals have exhibited some degree of walking abnormally or difficulty coordinating their back legs. As of August 2019, the FWC has confirmed neurological damage in one panther and one bobcat. Additionally, trail camera footage has captured eight panthers (mostly kittens) and one adult bobcat displaying varying degrees of this condition. Videos of affected cats were collected from multiple locations in Collier, Lee and Sarasota counties, and at least one panther photographed in Charlotte County could also have been affected. The FWC has been reviewing videos and photographs from other areas occupied by panthers but to date the condition appears to be localized as it is only documented in three general areas. The FWC is testing for various potential toxins, including neurotoxic rodenticide (rat pesticide), as well as infectious diseases and nutritional deficiencies. The public can help with this investigation by submitting trail camera footage or other videos that happen to capture animals that appear to have a problem with their rear legs. Files less than 10MB can be uploaded to our panther sighting webpage at MyFWC.com/PantherSightings. If you have larger files, please contact the FWC at Panther.Sightings@MyFWC.com. Bringing the Florida Panther Back from the Brink In 1950, Puma concolor coryi’s status changed from a “nuisance species” to that of a game animal. This status change halted indiscriminate killing, but the Florida panther wasn’t really protected until 1958 when it was listed as a state endangered species, and then later when it attained federal listing as an endangered subspecies on March 11, 1967. In order to consider delisting the Florida panther from the endangered species list, the federal recovery plan requires: Three viable, self-sustaining populations of at least 240 individuals (adults and subadults) each have been established and subsequently maintained for a minimum of twelve years. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. Exchange of individuals and gene flow among subpopulations must be natural (i.e., not manipulated or managed). 1988, seven wild mountain lions were caught in west Texas, sterilized to prevent breeding, and released into northern Florida to study the feasibility of relocating panthers. The results from this study were used to design and implement a second study in February, 1993 to evaluate the use of captive-raised animals in reestablishing a panther population in northern Florida and southern Georgia. Nineteen mountain lions, including 6 raised in captivity and conditioned for release into the wild, were released into the northern Florida study area and monitored through June 1995 (Belden and McCown 1996). This study found that reestablishment of additional Florida panther populations was biologically feasible. In 1995, in an effort to reverse the effects of inbreeding, eight young-adult, non-pregnant, female, Texas mountain lions were captured and introduced into the Florida panther population. A 1996 status report on the Florida panther by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission noted that the only documented breeding population of Florida panthers remained in southern Florida from Lake Okeechobee southward, primarily in the Big Cypress and Everglades physiographic regions. At the time it was estimated that only 30 to 50 animals, living in an area of roughly 4,000+ square miles, still remained. The Commission’s analysis indicated that, “without intervention, the Florida panther population had a high probability of becoming extinct in 25 to 40 years.” The report went on to state: The Florida panther faces the threat of extinction on 3 fronts. First, there is continual loss of panther habitat through human development. This continuing decline in available habitat reduces the carrying capacity and, therefore, the numbers of panthers that can survive. Second, genetic variation is probably decaying at a rate that is causing inbreeding depression (reduction of viability and fecundity of offspring of breeding pairs that are closely related genetically) and precluding continued adaptive evolution (Seal and Lacy 1989). Third, panther numbers may already be so low that random fluctuations could lead to extinction. Due to many factors, including the influx of new genetic material, increased public awareness, innovative wildlife corridors across deadly highways, and the acquisition of critical panther habitat within the primary zone, Florida’s panther population has, at the very least, doubled in size and stepped back from the brink of extinction. However, the inability of the species to expand beyond its tiny refuge in the Everglades will keep it on the endangered species list for a long time to come. Human-Caused Mortalities in Florida Now that the Florida panther is listed as a federally protected species, the number one cause of panther mortality in Florida is lack of sufficient habitat. Florida’s crowded conditions force young panthers into situations where they have to fight older more experienced panthers to establish their territories, or if they do disperse, put them at risk of being killed in an automobile collision. The five-year average of annual panther mortalities is 25 per year, with, on average, 17 of those animals being killed by motorists. After automobile accidents, intraspecific aggression is responsible for the next largest number of panther deaths. Puma concolor is a species which, after dispersal, does not normally come into contact with other panthers except to breed, or on the part of females, raise their young. Male panthers will fight and attempt to kill other panthers that enter established territories. Kittens are also at risk from male panthers since their deaths will allow their mothers to breed again. On average, intraspecific aggression is responsible for around 6 panther deaths per year, that we know of. MOUNTAIN LION MORTALITIES IN FLORIDA 1990 – AUGUST 28, 2012 TOTAL 207 Vehicular Trauma 154 Illegal Killing 7 Natural or Intraspecific Strife 90 Research 1 Unknown / Unspecified 45 Sport Hunting 0 Depredation 0 Public Safety 0 Wildlife Services 0 History Historically, Florida panthers were native to the Southeastern states including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia into South Carolina as well as Florida. Like many other populations of mountain lions across North America, these cats were extirpated from their original range under the persecution and killing regimes propagated by early European settlers, who immediately set about fearfully clearing the lands of all large predators. Indigenous tribes occupied the land for thousands of years as nomadic hunters and farmers before Europeans arrived. These tribes hunted mammoths, bison, giant tortoises, rabbits and alligators among other animals. Before the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans originally lived in what is now Florida include the Calusa, Timucua, Creek, Choctaw and Seminole. The Choctaw knew the panther as koi, the Muskogee Creek knew the panther as kaccv, the Timucua called panther yaraha. The Seminole were originally an alliance of northern Florida and southern Georgia tribes who banded together in the 1700s to fight European invaders from Spain and France. The original homelands of the Creek and other tribes were in northern Florida but since tribes of southern Florida had been mainly shipped to Cuba by the Spanish, the Seminoles retreated south, where descendants remain today. Florida remained under Spanish rule until 1821. Hunting panthers was historically part of the Seminole religious and cultural tradition where the hunter even ate the panther to gain spiritual knowledge and energy of that animal. In 1987 Seminole Chief Billie was prosecuted by the U.S. government for killing and eating an endangered Florida panther. Part of the defense argument pointed out the irony of the panther becoming endangered due to the white man’s commercial development and habitat destruction of the Everglades while a Native American, Chief Billie, was the only person ever to be prosecuted for killing an endangered Florida panther. Spanish Occupation The first recorded sighting of Puma concolor on the North American continent occurred in Florida. In 1513, a Spanish conquistador, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca spotted a “lion” near the Florida Everglades. That sighting was the beginning of negative interaction between humans and panthers in this state for more than 400 years. During that time period Puma concolor coryi was shot on sight by livestock owners, hunted for a bounty, lost their primary prey species (white-tailed deer) due to a legislative order, and had their ever-dwindling habitat degraded or changed into human settlements and agricultural development. The U.S. acquired Florida from Spain by treaty in 1821. After that, settlers began to arrive by steamboat in the 1830s and land was cleared for Florida’s first railroads. A bounty was immediately placed on panthers in 1832 in all Florida counties and the unregulated eradication of the cats had begun. In 1887, the State of Florida authorized a $5 bounty on every panther killed and the only thing that gave panthers respite from persecution was the deep, dark Everglades. This vast area of remote swampland remained an impenetrable tract of safety for the few panthers who were able to escape relentless persecution and retreat to the southern tip of Florida. In the early 1990s, the panther population was down to less than 50 individuals. Genetic defects from inbreeding were making reproduction difficult and put the population in greater jeopardy for diseases and early death. Eight female mountain lions from Texas were relocated to southern Florida to help revive the gene pool and all of their offspring are considered to be Florida panthers. Today, the Florida panther is one of the most endangered mammals in the U.S. with only an estimated 100-160 individuals remaining in the wild. Fur trade In the 1600s, the fur trade in the Americas became globalized and furs obtained from Native Americans were shipped to Europe where they were in high demand. Europeans imported goods the Indians wanted and were able to trade for the furs. In 1602, the Company of New France was given a royal charter and exclusive trading rights from Florida to the Arctic. Bounty In 1832 a bounty was placed on panthers in all counties. Then in 1887, the State of Florida authorized a $5 bounty on every panther killed. Sport and Recreational Hunting In 1950, the Florida panther was regulated as a game species with hunting seasons. Soon after that, in 1958, due to the decreasing population of the species, the panther was listed as a state endangered species. In 1967 the Florida panther was listed as endangered by the Federal Government and immediately added to the newly created Federal Endangered Species list upon its creation in 1973. Florida’s History of Panther Management The first recorded sighting of Puma concolor on the North American continent occurred in Florida. In 1513, a Spanish conquistador, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca spotted a “lion” near the Florida Everglades. That sighting was possibly the last benign interaction between humans and panthers in this state for more than 400 years. During that time period Puma concolor coryi was shot on sight by livestock owners, hunted for a bounty, lost their primary prey species (white-tailed deer) due to a legislative order, and had their ever-dwindling habitat degraded or changed into human settlements and agricultural development. The Florida panther didn’t receive any protection from humans prior to 1958 when it was listed as an endangered species under state law. By 1996, there were only 30 to 50 panthers still alive in Florida, and the only reason that many survived is because the Everglades have long prevented easy access to mankind. Important Dates in the History of the Florida Panther 1832 – Bounty placed on panthers in all Florida counties. 1887 – State of Florida authorizes a $5 bounty for every panther killed. 1937 – Florida legislature passes a bill to eradicate the white-tailed deer due to disease. 1946 – Florida’s panther listed as a subspecies of Felis concolor in both North and South America. 1950 – Panther regulated as a game species in Florida. 1958 – Florida panther listed as a state endangered species. 1967 – The Florida panther is listed as endangered by the Federal Government. 1973 – Florida panther is added to newly created Federal Endangered Species List. 1981 – First Florida panther recovery plan. 1982 – Based on a vote by Florida’s schoolchildren, Puma concolor coryi is designated as the state animal. 1986 – Three wild-caught, female Texas mountain lions are brought to Florida to test the possibilities of captive breeding. 1988 – Seven wild-caught mountain lions, captured in west Texas are released in northern Florida to study relocation possibilities. 1989 – The Florida panther National Wildlife Refuge is established. 1991 – Florida panther license plates go on sale. 1993 – 19 mountain lions, (11 females and 8 sterilized males – both captive-raised as well as wild-caught) are introduced into the local panther population to study the biological feasibility of reintroduction. 1995 – Eight wild-caught female mountain lions are captured and released in an effort to reverse the effects of inbreeding. 1996 – The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission estimates that there are only 30 – 50 panthers remaining in Florida. 2013 – Environmental groups file lawsuit to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve and the Florida panther from off-road vehicles. Habitat Scientific Name: Puma concolor coryi Note: The Florida panther was originally considered a subspecies of Puma concolor. Due to increased knowledge of the species, as well as advances in genetic research, scientists no longer consider the Florida panther as a unique subspecies though it still maintains the name. Panther Habitat and Population in Florida Many government agencies and NGOs assert that there are between 100 to 160 panthers residing in Florida. However, in 2008, a report by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission on the status of the Florida panther stated that the panther population was estimated to be approximately 100 animals and had remained at this level for several years. It was also implied that a large increase in population size was not expected or feasible because much of the available panther habitat in south Florida was currently occupied at capacity. The officially recognized capacity limits for the panther’s designated habitat zones only allow for the accommodation of a maximum of 84 animals. While the Florida panther once roamed throughout many of the southeastern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina), it was hunted to extinction everywhere except in the remote southwest corner of Florida where it was protected from humans by the impenetrable Everglades swamp. Today, an area just short of 2,200 square miles is essential habitat for the Florida panther. This habitat has been broken down into three distinct categories: primary, secondary, and dispersal. Secondary Zone If restored, might be able to support 25 to 30 panthers, but current conditions could not support this. Dispersal Zone 150,000+ acres immediately north of the Caloosahatchee River. Should function as a wildlife corridor to allow panthers to move out of south Florida. Cannot support a permanent population. Within the Florida panther’s remaining habitat, the species appear to prefer hardwood hammocks and pinelands. The saw palmetto plant is used extensively by panthers for resting, stalking prey, and as dens for young panthers. Law Generally, treatment of wildlife in the State of Florida is governed by the Florida Statutes – the state’s collection of all the laws passed by its legislature. Since our summary below may not be completely up to date, you should be sure to review the most current law for the State of Florida. You can check the statutes directly at a state-managed website. These statutes are searchable. Be sure to use the name “panther” to accomplish your searches. The Legislature The Florida State Legislature is a full-time, bicameral legislative body. The lower chamber – the House of Representatives – consists of 120 members who serve 2-year terms. Representatives are limited to four terms. The Republican Party has controlled the Florida House of Representatives since 1997. The upper chamber – the Senate – is made up of 40 members who serve 4-year terms. Florida state senators are limited to two terms. The Republican Party has controlled the Florida Senate since 1995. Information on how to contact your member of the Florida House of Representatives can be found here, and information on how to contact your state senator can be found here. The Constitution of the State of Florida governs when the legislature is to meet. Fourteen days after each general election, the legislature convenes in order to organize itself and elect officers. Regular sessions convene each year on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Regular sessions are limited to 60 consecutive days. Special sessions may be called by the governor or by the vote of three-fifths of the members of each chamber of the legislature. Special sessions are limited to 20 consecutive days unless three-fifths of the members of each chamber vote to extend the session. Road Mortalities Road mortalities are recorded in Florida and can be found by visiting Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Florida Panther Pulse page. No Roads to Ruin According to No Roads to Ruin, “In 2019, the Florida state legislature passed a bill to authorize the design and construction of three new toll roads through the heart of rural Florida. If built, these new toll roads will destroy large swaths of Florida’s last remaining rural lands and communities, pollute waterways, and threaten endangered wildlife, including the iconic Florida panther. The bill creating the Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance (M-CORES) was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on May 17, 2019, despite a veto request from over 90 organizations and businesses from across Florida.” We are actively involved in the No Roads to Ruin campaign that is working to halt the development of the toll roads and instead preserving critical panther habitat. Learn more by visiting: http://noroadstoruin.org/ 2021-04-29: Update from the No Roads to Ruin Coalition We wanted to share an update from the No Roads to Ruin Coalition of which we are a part. Along with the Coalition, we have actively been working to halt the development of the toll roads that would further fragment crucial habitat that Florida panthers and other wildlife rely on for survival. We are eternally grateful for all the time and effort No Roads to Ruin Coalition partners and individual activists have devoted to this cause. We honor them and their work to ensure a better future for Florida. The No Roads to Ruin Steering Committee did not support SB 100 because the bill did not stop all of the roads at the heart of M-CORES. SB 100 moves our state in the wrong direction and leaves North Florida’s rural communities and natural resources at risk. Florida needs a 21st Century transportation policy that takes us away from new roads through environmentally sensitive areas and towards sustainable transportation alternatives. As such, with two of three toll road threats remaining, we cannot proclaim that its passage and expected signing by the Governor as a triumph. Only two years ago many of the same Florida Legislators who supported SB 100 voted nearly unanimously to approve the three Roads to Ruin. The 2021 Florida legislature had the opportunity to fully repeal M-CORES with the introductions of SB 1030/HB 763. However, neither bill was ever heard in committee. Removing the toll road that would have imperiled the Western Everglades and existentially threatened the Florida panther is a tremendous relief. With fewer than 230 Florida panthers remaining, protecting them and their habitat is critically important for their survival and recovery. Removal of an imminent Southwest Central Corridor helps with this fight. What SB 100 does and does not do: Eliminates the M-CORES program but not all the Roads to Ruin included in the program. Eliminates the Southwest-Central Florida Connector in its entirety. Keeps the Northern Turnpike extension on the books with a different timetable. Does not eliminate the threat previously presented by the M-CORES Suncoast Connector. Provides US-19 north from the terminus of the Suncoast Parkway to I-10 as a way to replace the M-CORES Suncoast Connector. Includes the M-CORES task force recommendation of avoiding conservation lands with respect to upgrades of arterial highways, but only “to the greatest extent practicable,” and not specifically to the US 19 project. Frees up money once earmarked for M-CORES to be available for needed road projects throughout the state.This fight isn’t over. We must press on together to protect our natural resources and local communities from the Roads to Ruin.” Library Scientific Research Bartareau, T. (n.d.). Growth in body length and mass of the Florida panther: an evaluation of different models and sexual size dimorphism. Clark, J. D., & Manen, F. T. Van. (2016). Florida Panther Habitat Use in Response to Prescribed Fire Author ( s ): Catherine S . Dees , Joseph D . Clark and Frank T . Van Manen Published by?: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL?: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3803287 Accessed?: 05-03-2016 22?: 54 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use , available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info / about / policies / terms . jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars , researchers , and students discover , use , and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive . We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship . For more information about JSTOR , please contact support@jstor.org . Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize , preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions, 65(1), 141–147. Smith, T. R. (1989). Smith and Bass panthers , estimated at 6-9 . Despite low numbers , the stability , productivity , and dispersal potential of panthers in Everglades National Park potentially makes significant contributions to the size , genetic diversity , and long-term conservation of a wild population in south Florida . Key words?: carrying capacity , distribution , Everglades , Florida panther , landscape , mountain lion Although Florida panthers ( Felis concolor coryi ) historically occurred throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains of the southeastern United states ( Young and Goldman 1946 ), their distribution appeared to have been reduced to the Everglades region of south Flolrida by the mid-20th century ( Goldman 1946 , Tinsley 1970 ). Systematic investigation of observations and field sign Subsequently confirmed this assumption and indicated that , although panthers still were found across much of Florida , established , potentially viable ( sub ) populations of the species were limited to the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades in the vicinity and south of Lake Okeechobee ( Schemni . tz 1974 , Layne and McCauley 1976 , Nowak and McBride 1976 , Belden 1978 , McBride 1985?; but see Belden and Williams 1976 ). Persistence of a panther population in the Big Cypress- Everglades ecosystem appears to be primarily related to the remote , largely protected nature of the area rather than its quality per se as panther habitat . Early students of the Subject maintained that the extirpation of panthers in Florida and.	A 1996 status report on the Florida panther by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission noted that the only documented breeding population of Florida panthers remained in southern Florida from Lake Okeechobee southward, primarily in the Big Cypress and Everglades physiographic regions. At the time it was estimated that only 30 to 50 animals, living in an area of roughly 4,000+ square miles, still remained. The Commission’s analysis indicated that, “without intervention, the Florida panther population had a high probability of becoming extinct in 25 to 40 years.” The report went on to state: The Florida panther faces the threat of extinction on 3 fronts. First, there is continual loss of panther habitat through human development. This continuing decline in available habitat reduces the carrying capacity and, therefore, the numbers of panthers that can survive. Second, genetic variation is probably decaying at a rate that is causing inbreeding depression (reduction of viability and fecundity of offspring of breeding pairs that are closely related genetically) and precluding continued adaptive evolution (Seal and Lacy 1989). Third, panther numbers may already be so low that random fluctuations could lead to extinction. Due to many factors, including the influx of new genetic material, increased public awareness, innovative wildlife corridors across deadly highways, and the acquisition of critical panther habitat within the primary zone, Florida’s panther population has, at the very least, doubled in size and stepped back from the brink of extinction. However, the inability of the species to expand beyond its tiny refuge in the Everglades will keep it on the endangered species list for a long time to come. Human-Caused Mortalities in Florida Now that the Florida panther is listed as a federally protected species, the number one cause of panther mortality in Florida is lack of sufficient habitat. Florida’s crowded conditions force young panthers into situations where they have to fight older more experienced panthers to establish their territories, or if they do disperse, put them at risk of being killed in an automobile collision.	no
Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	yes_statement	"florida" panthers are on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is dangerously close to "extinction".	https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/7-billion-10-28-2011.html	Top 10 U.S. Endangered Species Threatened by Overpopulation	TUCSON, Ariz.— With the world’s human population poised to hit 7 billion on Oct. 31, the Center for Biological Diversity today released a list of the top 10 plants and animals in the United States facing extinction from pressure caused by overpopulation. “There’s a cost that comes with having 7 billion people on our planet, especially when it comes to species already on the brink of extinction,” said Amy Harwood, the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign coordinator. “The polar bear, Florida panther and bluefin tuna are just a few of the species being pushed toward extinction by the world’s rapidly growing population. People have taken away habitat for plants and animals, sucked up their water, and surrounded them with pollution, causing a global mass extinction crisis.” As the human population grows and rich countries continue to consume resources at voracious rates, we are crowding out, poisoning and eating all other species into extinction. With the world population hitting 7 billion, the Center is marking this milestone by releasing a list of species in the United States facing extinction caused by the growing human population. The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers. As the Florida coasts approach full buildout and have become unaffordable to most people, development has moved inland to the same places panthers retreated to as safe havens decades ago. A recent study concluded that current conditions “provide just enough space to support a [panther] population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable.” Unfortunately, the habitat is anything but stable: The five counties containing the last remaining panther population are projected to grow 55 percent in the next 30 years. A single proposed development among many, Big Cypress, would destroy 2,800 acres to make way for 9,000 new homes. Atlantic bluefin tuna: Marine fish provide 15 percent of all animal protein consumed by human beings. Fisheries management, however, has been outpaced by our population growth, causing global fisheries to collapse under the unsustainable pressure. A 2009 assessment found that 80 percent of global fish stocks are either overly and fully exploited or have collapsed. Though a catch reduction of 20-50 percent is needed to make global fisheries sustainable, the demand for fish is expected to increase by 35 million tons by 2030. Of greatest concern is the western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and has declined by more than 80 percent since 1970 due to overharvesting. Prized as a sushi fish around the world, it has become more valuable as it has become rare. One fish in 2011 sold for $396,000. The large, warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a common, upscale sushi menu item and has been severely overfished. The Atlantic bluefin, like so many other ocean species, is threatened by humans’ ravenous appetites: Demand far exceeds sustainable fishing levels. Loggerhead sea turtles: More than half the world’s 7 billion people live within 150 miles of the coast, putting tremendous pressure on species trying to find space to live and reproduce among the crowds. Among them is the loggerhead sea turtle, which was listed as a federally threatened species in 1978 owing to destruction of its beach nesting habitat, harassment while nesting, overharvesting of its eggs, and bycatch death via commercial fishing gear. Ninety-five percent of the U.S. breeding population of loggerheads nests in Florida, whose human population has doubled in the past 30 years. Thanks to careful management, the species’ population increased 24 percent from 1989 to 1998, but under intense pressure from development and recreational beach use, it declined dramatically thereafter, raising concerns it should be uplisted to “endangered” status. The population has increased in recent years, but is still highly vulnerable to nesting habitat destruction and disruption. Just 42,000 nesting attempts were made on Florida beaches in 2011. Sandplain gerardia: As the human population has increased, it has consumed remote landscapes with houses and other structures. The natural disturbances caused by fire, flood, drought and storm patterns, are suppressed despite playing essential roles in ecosystem health. In conflict with the permanence of human development, these disturbances create an ever-changing blend of meadow and forest, young and mature vegetation patterns. By controlling, limiting and often stopping these essential natural processes, we have changed ecosystems across America, eliminating habitat for rare and endangered species that depend on open habitats. In New England and the Atlantic coast, brush fires once thinned out dense pine forests and created a constantly moving mosaic of grasslands and prairies. The fires have been suppressed to protect human structures, causing open habitats to be permanently replaced by forest and brush. This nearly caused the extinction of the sandplain gerardia, a coastal plant in the snapdragon family. The sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species in 1998 when just 12 populations remained. Several were in historic cemeteries on Cape Cod as these made up some of the only open areas not covered by roads or development. Twenty-two populations exist today throughout the species’ range from Massachusetts to Maryland. Many are threatened by development and fire suppression, needing constant, active habitat maintenance. Lange’s metalmark butterfly: Many endangered species are endemics, meaning they naturally have very small ranges and populations sizes, and usually require very particular soil, vegetation or climate conditions to survive. These species are especially vulnerable to human encroachment. Among them is Lange’s metalmark butterfly, protected as endangered in 1976. Lange’s metalmark lives only in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. This unique ecosystem harbored many unique species, and many species have gone extinct as its dunes were hauled away in massive increments. After the 1906 fires, the city of San Francisco was rebuilt using brick-building material removed from the dunes. Lange’s metalmark is one of the most endangered species in the United States. It declined from some 250,000 in historic times to just 154 in 1986. It improved a bit, but then declined to just 45 butterflies in 2006. Today the species is still on the knife edge of extinction, with about 150 individuals remaining. To save Lange’s metalmark and two other endemic dune species, 55 of the remaining 60 acres of its habitat were purchased and turned into a national wildlife refuge — the first of its kind devoted entirely to endangered species. Under siege in one of the most densely populated regions in the country, however, the tiny refuge is surrounded by mining, oil and gas facilities. Recreationists have also taken a toll, causing several devastating fires; they trampled much of the butterfly’s habitat in 1986. Such is the fate of an extremely rare, highly endemic species trying to eke out an existence in a highly urbanized landscape. Mississippi gopher frog: The Mississippi gopher frog lives in stump holes and burrows dug by other animals, laying its eggs in ponds so shallow they dry up for several months of the year, keeping them free of fish that would eat frog eggs. It was placed on the endangered species list in 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 7,015 acres as protected critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in Mississippi and Louisiana in 2011. Reduced to approximately 100 individuals in the wild, the Mississippi gopher frog exists in just three small ponds just outside the proposed “town” of Tradition, Mississippi. Planned development would have a devastating effect on this rare frog. White River spinedace: The human population of Nevada grew by 35 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly four times faster than the national average. Las Vegas was one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. But the city is in the middle of a desert, so accommodating that explosive growth requires securing more water from nonlocal supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has proposed a massive project to pump billions of gallons of groundwater a year from eastern Nevada and western Utah through a 300-mile pipeline to supply rapidly growing urban areas like Las Vegas. The project will have a disastrous effect on dozens of imperiled species, including the White River spinedace, which was protected as an endangered species in 1985. One population of this rare fish was extirpated in 1991 because of irrigation diversion, and fewer than 50 fish remained in a single population in northeast Nevada. The White River spinedace’s population at the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area is directly threatened by the proposed pipeline, which will cut through the management area, draining and destroying critical habitat for the remaining populations. A recent environmental impact statement for the proposed pipeline project disclosed that major vegetation and ecosystem changes would occur on more than 200,000 acres, including wetlands that will dry up and wildlife shrubland habitat converted to dryland grasses and noxious weeds. More than 300 springs would also be hurt, along with more than 120 miles of streams. Polar bear: A polar bear is fit to swim 100 miles for food, in search of mates or, more recently, just some ice to stand on. With five inches of blubber keeping this enormous bear prepared for subzero temperatures, the largest member of the bear family has adapted to remarkable Arctic conditions. The fat stored in a polar bear carcass becomes essential food for other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox. However, the extreme impacts that human-caused climate change has had on the Arctic is pushing the polar bear closer to extinction. The rapid growth of the global human population — which has doubled since 1970 — has fed a massive push for more and more polluting fossil fuels and dramatically altered the planet’s atmosphere. A 2009 study on the relationship between population growth and global warming found that the “carbon legacy” of just one person can produce 20 times more greenhouse gases than one person saves by carbon-reducing steps such as driving high-mileage, using energy-efficient applicants and light bulbs. Few animals are bearing more of the brunt of the global climate crisis than the polar bear. Listed as a “threatened” species in 2008, polar bears are rapidly losing the sea ice they use to hunt, mate and raise their young. Polar bear numbers increased following the establishment of hunting regulations in the 1970s and today stand at 20,000 to 25,000. However, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice because of global warming has reversed this trend, and currently at least five of the 19 polar bear populations are declining. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that under current greenhouse gas emission trends, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all those in Alaska, will likely disappear by 2050. Gulf sturgeon: Lake Lanier, a manmade reservoir in Georgia, feeds several important river systems in the southeastern United States and has been the site of a longstanding conflict between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over water-use rights. The gulf sturgeon, an anadromous fish, was placed on the threatened species list in 1991. Its most imperiled populations occur in the Apalachicola River, fed by rivers from Lake Lanier. Gulf sturgeon lay eggs on the waterlines along the banks of rivers, and maintaining the right level of water is critical to their breeding success. Population growth has strained the capacity of Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta and other urban areas. A 2009 study explicitly identified explosive population growth as the cause of the ensuing water war between Georgia, Alabama and Florida following a regionwide drought: “…Nineteenth-century droughts, which are perhaps better thought of as a single multi-decadal dry period, are well within the range of historical records and could potentially have had an agricultural effect but probably would not have had an effect on water availability for people given the generally wet climate of the Southwest and the much smaller population then as opposed to now.” Gulf sturgeon numbers initially declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Habitat loss was exacerbated by the construction of water control structures, such as dams, mostly after 1950. Other habitat disturbances such as dredging, groundwater extraction, irrigation and flow alterations also threaten the Gulf sturgeon. Poor water quality and contaminants, primarily from industrial sources, also contribute to population declines. Today the gulf sturgeon remains threatened as the tug-of-war continues over the supplies that feed the river where it lives and the region’s ever-expanding human population. San Joaquin kit fox: The San Joaquin kit fox was relatively common until the 1930s, when people began to convert grasslands to farms, orchards and cities. By 1958, 50 percent of its habitat in California’s Central Valley had been lost, due to extensive land conversions for agriculture, intensive land uses and pesticides. By 1979, less than 7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's original wildlands south of Stanislaus County remained untilled and undeveloped. The kit fox was listed as endangered in 1967. Today there are fewer than 7,000 scattered among fragmented populations. The four counties with known San Joaquin kit foxes have grown by 60 percent — by another 1.5 million people — since 1983. Besides habitat loss, the San Joaquin kit fox is threatened by pesticides and rodenticides associated with intensive agricultural use, industrial activities and residential areas in the Central Valley. Kit foxes’ small-mammal prey base has been significantly reduced by rodenticides, which not only kill life-sustaining prey but can also kill kit foxes when they build up in the foxes’ bodies. Kit foxes have adapted to get their water from the prey they eat making them even more dependent on their food source. They also often burrow in other animals’ dens, leaving them vulnerable to other human activities such as fumigants used to kill coyotes. In addition to impacts from farmland conversion, the San Joaquin kit fox is severely stressed by the changes to annual rainfall caused by climate change.	The 10 species represent a range of geography, as well as species diversity — but all are critically threatened by the effects of overpopulation. Some, like the Florida panther and Mississippi gopher frog, are rapidly losing habitat as the human population expands. Others are seeing their habitat dangerously altered — like the small flowering sandplain gerardia in New England — or, like the bluefin tuna, are buckling under the weight of massive overfishing. Still others, like the polar bear, are facing extinction because of fossil fuels driving catastrophic global warming. “Human overpopulation and overconsumption are simply taking away the land, air and water other creatures need to survive,” Harwood said. “The world population is expected to hit 10 billion by the end of this century. Left unchecked, this massive population growth will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity around the globe — biodiversity we need to maintain the web of life we’ve always depended on.” The Center launched its 7 Billion and Counting campaign last month to raise awareness of global population growth and its connection to the accelerating extinction of species. As part of the campaign, the Center is giving out 100,000 of its hugely popular Endangered Species Condoms this year to more than 1,200 volunteer distributors around the country. Top 10 U.S. Species Being Driven Extinct by Overpopulation Florida panther: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, but now survives in a tiny area of South Florida representing just 5 percent of its former range. It was listed as an endangered species in 1967 because of habitat destruction and fragmentation through urban sprawl. Large numbers of panthers died as the expanding network of roads connecting Florida’s rapidly growing human population spread throughout its range. As of 2011, there are only 100 to 120 panthers left. As Florida’s panther numbers plummeted, the state’s human population nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Recent development patterns pose extreme threats to panthers.	yes	Endangered Species	Are Florida Panthers on the brink of extinction?	no_statement	"florida" panthers are not on the "brink" of "extinction".. the "florida" panther population is not currently facing "extinction".	https://environment.co/endangered-species-in-the-us-to-know/	7 Endangered Species in the U.S. to Know - Environment Co	7 Endangered Species in the U.S. to Know We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission. Currently, over 1,300 endangered species live in the U.S., pushed nearly to the brink of extinction due to human interference or other tragedies. When a species vanishes completely, it may have a drastic ripple effect on other species in the area. Conservation efforts can help these animals grow in number again, but education and knowing more about these species can drive people to care about them. 1. Franklin’s Bumblebee Many people realize that bees of all kinds are crucial to the ecosystem. Without honeybees, in particular, humans may have a difficult time harnessing a replacement for the ecosystem, which is why they need extreme protection. The Franklin’s bumblebee has a limited environment, only in select parts of northern California and southern Oregon, so they aren’t often seen by many. Currently, no measures for conservation exist for the insect. We need more information to correctly assess the danger these bees might be in. Still, they’ve had a hard time. Non-native plants have taken over the native plants that Franklin’s bumblebees rely on for food, and they have to navigate through poisonous pesticides to pollinate other plants. Unfortunately, more about this species’ status needs to be known before conservation begins. 2. Indiana Bat The Indiana bat is native to its home state, and it has been endangered since the 1960s, when human intervention disturbed the caves where the bat species resides. These bats typically only live to about ten years old, and most of the population hibernates in select few caves during winter. White-nose syndrome, a disease that affects American wildlife, has crept into the dwindling population of Indiana bats. Conservation efforts are underway, but it may take a while for researchers and scientists alike to find a cure for the disease that spreads through the endangered species. 3. California Condor The California condor wasn’t always just in California. Over time, humans poisoned and killed the condors. Hazards such as wires also pose threats to the California condor. In 2007, the California governor took measures to remove lead from the water in areas that California condors populated. Since then, the population of condors has been increasing, with captive breeding becoming a success. The California condors have been breeding in both captivity and the wild now. Though the species still faces extinction, it is on its way to recovery. 4. Florida Panther The Florida panther is a subspecies of mountain lion, differing from others of its kind by its crooked tail and unique fur patterns. While it used to be found from Florida to midwestern states, this species is now only found in the southwest of Florida and wetlands. No more than 130 Florida panthers exist in the wild, and they face many threats of extinction altogether. However, recent acts of land preservation have allowed the big cat population to grow steadily. In the future, this species may make it off the endangered list. 5. Key Deer The Key deer is a subspecies of white-tailed deer found only in the Florida Keys. The wild population has fallen under 1,000 members, most often thanks to human intervention. Illegal feeding of the Key deer can spread parasite infestations that harm the species. Traffic also poses an issue for all kinds of deer, and the Key deer are no exception. Though many people may not know it as an endangered species in the U.S., the Key deer species is worth saving. We brought this species back from the brink of extinction before, and with the right conservation efforts, it could grow again. 6. Black-Footed Ferret Black-footed ferrets rely on a substantial community of prairie dogs to thrive, as they are their primary food source. Primarily, purposeful extermination or land development cause endangered species. Breeding in captivity, then releasing black-footed ferrets into the wild has proved to help the population grow more, thankfully. They are a flagship species, meaning that conserving them brings attention to the plight of other species in their ecosystem. 7. Red Wolf One of the most well-known endangered species in the U.S. is the red wolf. It used to roam many states, but now you can only find it in North Carolina. As of 2021, only about eight red wolves existed in the wild, while organizations protected others in captivity. The road to recovery is slow for this species of wolf, but in time, they may bounce back. Help Save the Endangered Species in the U.S. As the endangered species in the U.S. continue to join the list, many people need to realize that time is of the essence if they want to save these animals. Several people may think they can’t help, but by advocating for these animals and educating others, you can help drive away the fear and misunderstanding others might have about them. Get involved by sponsoring an endangered animal. Though it has been too late for many species, a collective effort can turn the tides for these endangered animals. Get the latest updates on our planet by subscribing to the Environment.co newsletter!	In 2007, the California governor took measures to remove lead from the water in areas that California condors populated. Since then, the population of condors has been increasing, with captive breeding becoming a success. The California condors have been breeding in both captivity and the wild now. Though the species still faces extinction, it is on its way to recovery. 4. Florida Panther The Florida panther is a subspecies of mountain lion, differing from others of its kind by its crooked tail and unique fur patterns. While it used to be found from Florida to midwestern states, this species is now only found in the southwest of Florida and wetlands. No more than 130 Florida panthers exist in the wild, and they face many threats of extinction altogether. However, recent acts of land preservation have allowed the big cat population to grow steadily. In the future, this species may make it off the endangered list. 5. Key Deer The Key deer is a subspecies of white-tailed deer found only in the Florida Keys. The wild population has fallen under 1,000 members, most often thanks to human intervention. Illegal feeding of the Key deer can spread parasite infestations that harm the species. Traffic also poses an issue for all kinds of deer, and the Key deer are no exception. Though many people may not know it as an endangered species in the U.S., the Key deer species is worth saving. We brought this species back from the brink of extinction before, and with the right conservation efforts, it could grow again. 6. Black-Footed Ferret Black-footed ferrets rely on a substantial community of prairie dogs to thrive, as they are their primary food source. Primarily, purposeful extermination or land development cause endangered species. Breeding in captivity, then releasing black-footed ferrets into the wild has proved to help the population grow more, thankfully. They are a flagship species, meaning that conserving them brings attention to the plight of other species in their ecosystem. 7. Red Wolf One of the most well-known endangered species in the U.S. is the red wolf.	no

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.