lyndon taylor wrote:however tobacco can be considered to break the first precept, no killing of yourself, much more so than tea or coffee would apply to the first precept. The first precept could also apply to unhealthy eating, like excess sugar or fat in the diet.
By this reasoning, birth is killing because it will certainly lead to death in the end. Labeling any action that fails to maximize longevity as "killing" trivializes the first precept. The intention to kill is a key component of what constitutes "killing". Refraining from taking life is a matter of intention. Unintentional killing of countless tiny organisms is unavoidable as part of life. To completely stop killing anything at all intentionally or unintentionally would require a complete cessation of all physical activity including any eating or drinking. Even arahants still walk, eat, and drink, which are activities that will result in unintentional killing. Avoiding unhealthy consumption is a matter of restraint for bringing an end to craving, but it is not covered by the first precept.
AN 6.63
AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta wrote:
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
SN 42.8 seems informative on this topic.
SN 42.8: Sankha Sutta wrote:
"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him, 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell." There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
SN 42.8: Sankha Sutta wrote:
"[The thought occurs to him,] 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"There is the case, headman, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear knowing & conduct, well-gone, a knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of those to be tamed, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened, blessed. He, in various ways, criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, 'Abstain from taking life.' He criticizes & censures stealing, and says, 'Abstain from stealing.' He criticizes & censures indulging in illicit sex, and says, 'Abstain from indulging in illicit sex.' He criticizes & censures the telling of lies, and says, 'Abstain from the telling of lies.'
"A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.