Buddhist precepts were classically individual commitments, not structural demands

Evidence

The classical Theravāda and Mahāyāna traditions both interpreted the precepts primarily as commitments to individual moral conduct: the practitioner undertakes, in her own person, to refrain from causing harm. The precept is a description of what she will and will not do. Sulak’s structural reading asks a different question: what institutional conditions make the violation of the precept possible, and what does the committed practitioner owe to dismantling those conditions? On this reading, a Buddhist practitioner who personally refrains from striking children but does nothing to address the cultural and institutional norms that make such striking routine has not fully honored the first precept. — , The Rod and the Child, 3984

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes classical individual-precept interpretation from Sulak’s structural reading — a genuine conceptual framework distinction.
• XREF: Connects to the series’ recurring gap between doctrine and institutional practice across all traditions. — connects to: Buddhist tradition has a consistent anti-coercive pedagogical ethic — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 4006; Communal philosophy need not imply unanimous belief among members; Early Buddhism excluded cripples, women, and debtors and reinforced existing hierarchies (+1 more)

Related

• Early Buddhism excluded cripples, women, and debtors and reinforced existing hierarchies (similarity 0.87)
• Buddhist tradition has a consistent anti-coercive pedagogical ethic (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Buddhist tradition has a consistent anti-coercive pedagogical ethic #corroborates (0.60) — , The Rod and the Child, 4006
• Communal philosophy need not imply unanimous belief among members #expands (0.50)