The very first thing (or, wrestling with the meat of the matter)

 I could probably live by the Five Precepts of Buddhism quite easily, if it wasn't for that pesky first one.

The Precepts of Buddhism are a list of... not exactly laws. They are "ways" that you "take up" - choosing to live by them to embody the teachings of the person commonly referred to as Gautama Buddha, or the Buddha Shakyamuni. And others. So many others. As with most religions that started with oral traditions, the people who eventually wrote them down recorded not only what was left of the original but also all of the other additions made along the way (and threw in a few additions of their own). 

The full list of Precepts were designed for monks and nuns, and you can tell they were culturally motivated because the nuns have almost 100 more precepts than the monks (311 to 227), when everyone knows men need as much guidance as women (if not more) owing to the fact that they are hormonal and irrational beings (yes, I said it - and I stand by it. It's true).

But there are shorter lists of precepts for people who are just dipping their toes in monasticism (to see if they really want to dedicated their lives to this path before they take all those vows) and for lay practitioners who want a bit of discipline in their lives but aren't in a place to become a monastic.

The babiest of baby steps is the Five Precepts, which are as follows:

1. to abstain from taking life
2. to abstain from taking what is not given
3. to abstain from sensuous misconduct
4. to abstain from false speech
5. to abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud the mind

From there, you add an extra three for the Eight Precepts that lay practitioners observe on special holy days and meditation retreats:

6. to abstain from eating food after midday
7. to abstain from dancing, music, singing, watching entertaining or wearing make-up and adornments
8. to abstain from sitting or sleeping on high places.

Or another five Precepts that you add to make up 10, if you're aiming to become a monk one day. I won't go into those here, but if you look up 10 Precepts you'll find a few different lists. 

The point I wanted to make is that the very first Precept - the one every list starts with - is the voluntary version of "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

I find it interesting that two different cultures on the other side of the planet both came up with the exact same "first principle" (I'd be interested to see how many religions all over the world started with this one). In the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, it was a law that you should follow to avoid displeasing God. In the Buddhist 5/8/10/etc. Precepts, it's a voluntary way of life that you take up to become a good person.

In both communities over the years, people and cultures have made interesting bargains with this one. The Judeo-Christian folk managed to somehow justify mass slaughter in the Crusades (apparently "thou shalt not kill" isn't the blanket statement it first appears to be, and only applies to not killing certain people under certain conditions - everyone and everything else is fair game), while different Buddhist groups at different times in history have also found their own exceptions.

However, at this point in time the following of the first Precept has largely lead to a vegetarian life-style if not straight up veganism, and avoiding killing insects. Which is all well and good if...

If you don't know what you're killing and what you aren't killing and why.

You see, we walk in death - we're steeped in it. This is the process of life. In order for anything to live, other things must die. This is the way the planet renews itself and keeps in balance. It is my firm believe that everything on this earth exists to eat and be eaten, to kill and be killed, in order to maintain the lifecycle and keep the system (and the systems within the system) on an even keel.

I've read a few interpretations of the first Precept that say it's not as bad to kill an ant as it is to kill something bigger, because of the effort and intentionality involved. Well, arguably so, I guess, but the ant is just as deserving of life as the antelope. And the cantaloupe is, too. I do not believe plants are okay to kill while animals aren't. The shrub I cut down yesterday because it was growing sideways and I couldn't straighten it up was a living being who no doubt knew it was alive and wanted to remain so. Just as the carrots I eat for dinner are not less deserving of life because they aren't cows.

And while I often gravitate to a more vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, in my heart of hearts I don't believe it the way "real" vegetarians and vegans do. I don't believe "meat is murder", but I do believe farming is torture, so when I find myself wanting to give up the consumption of animals, it's largely because I wish they hadn't lived such miserable lives before they were killed.

If you had sustainably hunted down a older wildebeest that had happily gone about it's life trying to avoid being caught by hunters and lions, I wouldn't have any qualm with eating it or wearing it's skin as a hat (I'd be sorry for its loss, but accept it as part of the circle of life). But man I wish we weren't such bastards to the animals "in our care".

On a different note, I often catch and release insects when they come into my house, but then kill them on mass when they move in as a colony and start eating the place. You can't tell me a nest of termites shouldn't be killed before they lay waste to everything, but you also can't tell me they aren't living creatures who can feel pain and want to live at ease.

It's just such a tangle in my brain. On the one hand, I don't believe the "little" deaths we're okay with are things we should be as okay with as we are. On the other hand, I don't believe the "big" deaths we're not okay with are things we should be avoiding. We are omnivores, after all - we're the middle part of the food chain and it's part of our role in the system to eat a range of living things to help keep the numbers in check (which is not what we're doing with our agricultural life-styles).

I wrestle with the first Precept almost every day. On the one hand I would love to be able to just say "stuff it, I'm becoming a vegan and I will discourage insects from being where I would need to kill them", but on the other hand I know I need the nutrition from animals (I get anaemic, and my irritable bowl doesn't react to animal products the way it does to many plants) and I don't think animals deserve life more than plants do...

I think - and this is just where I am at the moment - that the balance (the "middle way") in this is to be kind and respectful to all living beings. To understand that death is inevitable, but not to be taken for granted. That you should avoid killing unnecessarily, by only taking what you need, and understanding that someone (plant or animal) who was living is now dead, and that is something we need to acknowledge with much gratitude and some mourning.

Living on the death of other beings is part of what it is to be human. We can't remove ourselves from this - it is Samsara, to an extent. Perhaps if I was the kind of Buddhist who sought to break the cycle of Samsara and achieve Nirvana, this first Precept really is the first step. But I'm not. I rather think Samsara is the point of existence, and we're deluding ourselves if we think we're getting out of it (much better to be consciously and conscientiously engaged in the process).

And yet...

And yet...

And yet...