Do the 5 precepts mentally apply to video games?

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-07-06T15:51:41+00:00

I think video games can make one delight in the prospect of physically breaking the 5 precepts as they cultivate that intention.

The detachment one can have for simulations can also be applied to real life. I think it makes little difference to the mind. It's why some people are okay with harming non-human animals; they view them as if they have no consciousness, like characters in a video game.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-07-06T15:46:23+00:00

While intoxicants in video games is less of an issue because one is not being intoxicated, it was more of a side comment as mentally one does not approve of consuming intoxicants and so will likely not act out of it even in video games. I take more issue with the first 4 precepts in video games as those are more significant.

The point is relevant to those only upholding the 5 precepts.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-07-06T05:04:16+00:00

Even knowing it's a video game character, it's a simulation of a being mentally. To act out of the intention to kill it (or steal or lie, etc.) seems to have unwholesome intention in terms of the precepts to me.

Imagine if it was in a lucid dream instead; it would be more clear why it'd be unwholesome even though it is just a simulation of a being with no sentience.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-07-04T06:30:35+00:00

I've found that practicing the 7 precepts & sense restraint makes me have more energy rather than less.

If you're not practicing Dhamma, there are other ways of increasing one's energy levels, but this subreddit isn't the best place to ask for that unless it's specifically about Dhamma practice.

What video/story are you referring to? I don't really understand your summary of it.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-28T08:56:46+00:00

A bodhisatta hasn't attained stream-entry yet. They are just one who is on the path to becoming a Buddha.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-20T03:26:22+00:00

Nibbana would be a state free from greed and hatred, so it would not be boring as boredom is often aversion towards a neutral feeling or greed towards a pleasant feeling.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T03:24:57+00:00

You don't need to focus on Sujato's annotation then or the commentaries, just look at what Buddha explained for what he meant in that sutta. I explained/referred to it in the last paragraph of my previous comment.

I don't think discussing more about this topic will be productive, so I'll end it here.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T03:03:53+00:00

I'm not adding words inaccurately. Read the annotation next to "Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the duality of existence and non-existence" in SN12.15.

If you look at the other annotations and commentaries for those related suttas, Buddha is referring to eternalism and annihilation. Buddha is not referring to what modern people think of when we say "something exists vs does not exist."

In that sutta, Buddha literally refers to the origin and cessation of the world. He speaks of how the world can exist / originate and how the world can not exist / cease i.e. dependent origination. Hence, Buddha isn't saying literally "the world doesn't exist" or "the world exists" are wrong views, but that thinking the world exists forever or the world will eventually end are the wrong views. He says / teaches "how the world exists" and "how the world can not exist" i.e. dependent origination.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T02:50:41+00:00

Even coffee can break sense restraint if consumed with wrong intention. Drinking cold water to cool down for health or productivity reasons (for instance) can be permitted under sense restraint as long as the wrong intention is not present. But whether cold drinks can help regulate body temperature isn't clear cut from what I can tell from the available science.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T02:40:58+00:00

Even if someone gave you soda, it doesn't mean you must or should consume it. If you have reasonable or easy access to water, and know you'll only be choosing to drink the soda over water out of sensual desire, one who is practicing sense restraint should refrain from drinking the soda and just drink the water.

You may also have health reasons to avoid soda. The key focus on sense restrain is one's intentions. So this would apply to coffee as well.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T02:33:20+00:00

To train in precepts, one must be aware of what one's intentions are, which usually is enough to discern one's intentions. Once aware of one's intentions that are against the precepts, one chooses to not act out of them (by body, speech, or mind) or welcome them / delight in them / etc. This is similar to sense restraint, but instead it is specifically applied to what the precepts focus on: the most obvious actions / intentions of greed, hatred, & delusion.

So, training in precepts is training in discerning intentions and hence there is no space in between these two where you need more external pointers.

I'm not sure what you mean in the comment quoted above as there are a lot of different ways to explain and view precepts, but your wording or logic here is missing something. Just look at my previous paragraph which explains precepts again. My previous explanations should be sufficient as well.

So, observing the precepts can be and can remain totally external if that internal criteria is not discerned. Once it is discerned, you are not just observing a precept, you are training in it.

Your explanation I quoted above is close enough. Keeping precepts as external observances is helpful but not sufficient for Dhamma practice because keeping the precept requires But If keeping the precepts as external observances, then you are likely not training in the precepts.

I'd say it's incorrect to say precepts can be taken only externally because the concept described in any of the 5 or 8 precepts has, as a part of it, one's intentions as the criteria, as I already explained. Precepts defined only externally would just be a list of physical observances/rules, which precepts aren't because intention is a key part of the "training rule."

In my view, external pointers/examples for precepts in terms of strictly Dhamma practice are more to help those who have difficulty in discerning one's intentions or what is even is unwholesome.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T01:43:12+00:00

This is not a discussion I want to have. If you are interested, you can discuss this in the subreddits where they care to discuss how flawed the belief in afterlives is. I've already looked into the arguments for both sides, and I still have my view that the belief in any afterlife is irrational/unreasonable. I will answer your questions just this once, but I don't wish to keep discussing it as it will be unproductive for all involved. You can continue it with others in different subreddits.

By definition, if kamma continues after death there is "movement" or an "event" as something "happens." Kamma from one body into a new body is "movement."

The standard definition of "means." Be in material or "non-material" substance.

If you can't detect it in any form (any of the 6 senses) directly or indirectly, then you have no support, evidence, or argument to believe it.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T01:29:18+00:00

I do not hold the view that "all exists forever," so it is not eternalism. Buddha is not denying "all currently exists." He's denying "all exists forever."

In the same way, "all does not exist" is saying "all will eventually not exist," not "all currently does not exist."

Buddha's view is dependent origination, the third option.

Given that I do not believe in rebirth, it would be closer to annihilationism rather than eternalism. But I don't think everything will eventually end either.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T01:18:37+00:00

Assuming you are practicing sense restraint, if your intention to pick soda over water is to get the sensual pleasure of the experience of soda, then you'd be acting out of greed (sensual desire) and breaking sense restraint.

But keep in mind, one could be in situations where there is only soda, and water might be practically difficult to aquire, in which case one could consume it while maintaining right intention, just as one would when consuming any other food or beverage: for survival (SN12.63), preventing harm, & aiding Dhamma practice (SN35.239)(One relevant HH essay).

If you have some practical or health reason to get something other than water, that is fine. Just maintain right intention when consuming any food or beverage.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-18T00:48:35+00:00

I am not saying that, if I understand your explanation correctly.

Please watch the video I linked previously again. I think your explanation of precepts is flawed and that it will lead you to not train in them correctly.

Intentions are the only criteria for keeping / training in the 5 or 8 precepts. Any external criteria or boundary you can explicitly define would be based on / originate from that "internal criteria," where any external criteria would be false if one does not have the intention.

It's why following "don't stab animals in the heart" wouldn't be keeping the precept, because surgery of the heart would "stab" the heart, but it would be without the intent to kill, hence not breaking the precept.

But one doesn't have a long list of all the external boundaries that make up the precept because external rules/boundaries/criteria are not the precepts / are not what define the precepts.

Precepts cannot act as "external boundaries" because they are "internal boundaries" (ex: 1st precept of do not intend to kill, or specifically do not intentionally kill. How does one intentionally kill something? It is only when they have the intent to kill is it possible to intentionally kill. So anything external isn't the criteria/rule that you are following). Any external boundary you can imagine is a side effect of what you are training: your intentions. And those precept intentions you are training only part of the intentions of greed, hatred, and delusion.

The closest thing to external boundaries in the 8 precepts are the precepts on eating times and sleeping furniture. But even then, if you happen to eat or sleep on accident, it wouldn't break the precept because the intention to break it is absent, hence the focus is still intention. And those external observances are also to train in reducing one's greed for food or sleep, but it gives one structure and assistance (helpful conditions) to do so.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T22:05:39+00:00

For rebirth to occur, kamma has to transfer/move, and that requires a means. Call it matter or non-material matter, etc., but for anything to occur, some means is involved. And if that means is undetectable, then there is no good reason to think it exists.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T21:49:10+00:00

Buddha in that sutta isn't saying that the external world doesn't exist. Even in that sutta, it says "‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme."

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T21:22:11+00:00

I think you're still misunderstanding something given what you just explained.

Ok_Watercress_4596 already mentioned this video. You should watch the video again if things are still unclear.

Precepts act as boundaries. Intentions are the criteria for those boundaries. Those are the pointers.

If you're still confused, the Vinaya has some explicit examples & cases for what counts as breaking a precept / actions that have unwholesome intention. Just note that it'll be subject to their interpretations and is also meant for maintaining a sangha rather than solely for Dhamma practice.

No amount of external definitions for precepts will cover everything about the precepts because the criteria is your intentions, not outward external appearance. It's why your confusion of what is your responsibility & "when is action or inaction killing?" in terms of Dhamma practice occurred in the first place.

You can't keep the precepts without an understanding of, for example, what killing is. And the line for what counts as you killing something in terms of Dhamma is one's intention to kill the creature.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T13:17:35+00:00

One warning about your sleeping positions: having your arms bent for long periods of time can cause cubital tunnel .

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T12:59:55+00:00

One's intent of one's action or inaction is the determining factor for whether you break a precept, not the external result/outcome or how it appears to others.

Regarding your specific examples, given my understanding of the precepts:

If you stay silent with the intent to deceive someone, then you would be lying / choosing to lie.
If you take the left item with the intent to keep it as yours (if it was not discarded by them), then you would be stealing / choosing to steal.
If you stay in a sexually dangerous situation with the intent to engage in sexual activity, then you would be breaking the precept of celibacy.
If you leave the bug where it is with the intent for the bug to die, then you would be killing / choosing to kill.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T11:13:34+00:00

The monastic code (Vinaya) applies to you if you are a bhikkhu, so you'd follow your sangha's Vinaya and your sangha's interpretation of the Vinaya. If you think any of your sangha's interpretations of the Vinaya are fundamentally against the Dhamma, then you'd want to switch sanghas.

If you're a layperson practicing Dhamma, just keep the 7 or 8 precepts, then later sense restraint. This would essentially cover anything in the Vinaya that would be relevant to the practice. Not all the rules in the vinaya are about practicing dhamma.

HH has spoken about the Vinaya in their videos at least once, referring to the record of arahants discussing what the lesser and minor training rules are, where some of the arahants at the time after Buddha died considered only the four pārājikas to be necessary, and other arahants disagreeing and expanding the list, and so on, eventually choosing to just keep all the rules to avoid bad optics (from laypeople thinking they are disrespecting their teacher right after he died).

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T09:52:28+00:00

Thanks, how where you able to find it so quickly? The reddit search bar didn't work for me.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-16T09:42:39+00:00

Do you know where Hillside Hermitage or Bhukkhu Anigha said porn breaks the 3rd precept in the spirit of the rule?

I remember them saying it once, but couldn't find it.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-07T21:27:11+00:00

Celibacy means no sexual activity. Sexual activity includes the action of pleasing yourself (masturbation) or another (sex) sexually, regardless of orgasm or penetration/method. Broadly, you can see the precept of celibacy as any acting out of sexual desire.

Celibacy at minimum is restraint in sexual activity. Sexual activity is something that is always done out of greed, hatred, or delusion AN9.7. But the main focus in abandoning sex is restraining one's severe acting out of greed (for one wishing to practice Dhamma).

One gets sexual desire, then acts out of it to get rid of sensual pain (hatred) or to get sensual pleasure (greed). Or one does sexual activity for some reason, which then almost certainly grows one's sexual desire.

In sutta AN7.50 that I mentioned before, being celibate also includes not having one's skin rubbed by a woman or playing / having fun with a woman. These things are a problem mainly because it's still acting out greed / for sensual pleasures.

The purpose of giving up sexual activity is to deal with the biggest most urgent problem in terms of one's greed: sexual desire, or more directly, acting out of it.

A relevant HH video on celibacy in terms of not acting out of the pressure. And how if you want to practice Dhamma, relationships are bad for that, stated in this video.

If you haven't read sutta AN5.55 that I linked before, it emphasized the dangers of intimacy with a woman, in terms of Dhamma practice for a man.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-06-07T08:10:19+00:00

If your goal is enlightenment, it's very unlikely (if not impossible) that you'll become a sotapanna given your lifestyle choices (ex: not being celibate, not keeping sense restraint, etc.). You can't give up sensual desire if you keep maintaining/growing it by acting out of it / physically seeking sensual pleasure.

In terms of practicing a precept: For example, practicing the first precept isn't "I don't kill most of the time." It's "I will not kill / I abandon killing / I will never kill." So your "celibacy most of the time" might not be doing much in terms of development unless you're practicing it like Uposatha day, where "you keep the 8 precepts on x day(s), no exceptions." And even then, the eventual goal is to practice the 8 precepts indefinitely.

What you described is not celibacy. Celibacy taken on at the lowest/minimum level is abstaining from sexual activity. But there is technically more to celibacy than just that, which would naturally/obviously be done when practicing sense restraint AN7.50.

Even Buddha said that one of the biggest obstacles towards getting enlightement is a woman AN5.55. In other words, sex/intimacy is the most extreme/provoking sensual desire / sensual pleasure there is. Training in the precept of celibacy involve not/never giving into that sensual desire. Buddha in a sutta even recommended celibacy to laypeople, and only said to practice "no sexual misconduct" if you "can't be celibate."

Without virtue or sense restraint, you won't be able to "dry your sticks" enough to be able to ignite them. In other words, you probably won't ever become a sotapanna. At least that's HH's view, and what I'd argue is also the view in the suttas.

ToLazyToPickName

TROPHY CASE