It's highly unlikely that distillation was known in the Buddha's time. The first evidence of it is from the 2nd century CE, and alcohol is known to have been distilled around the 12th century.
Personally, my main beef with your interpretation of the fifth precept is the same one I have about vegetarianism/veganism. It's incredibly easy to latch onto food taboos, and turn them into props for the ego. There's a very short step from resolving to stick to the fifth precept—or resolving to abstain from meat, or all animal products—to a self-righteous moralism, which, I'm pretty sure, is *not* a good thing—even if you have the social grace to only think it and not actually shove it in people's faces.
IOW, my take is that if you can abstain from alcohol without "being a teetotaller," or not eat meat without "being a vegan," that's most definitely a good thing. But if the choice is between occasional consumption of meat and alcohol and "becoming a vegan" or "becoming a teetotaller," I think it just might be better to eat that steak, drink that beer, and then deal with the karma.
My teacher once said in a teisho that he thinks that it's not a great idea to stick too closely to the Precepts until you've had a few realizations; otherwise you just risk getting stuck on them, and they become an impediment on the path rather than an aid. (As far as I know, he neither eats meat nor drinks alcohol.)
Friday, July 16, 2010
zui said...
Alcohol issue is straightforward, but what's with the psychedelics? Most of them aren't pleasurable per se and yield no "mindless acting".
Do you have sources on alcohol in ancient India? I'm interested to follow up.
Although my argument above is intellectual, my conviction is another thing. I do not rely on what any 'teacher' says because I have 15 years of practice of my own to draw on when thinking about this stuff. In practice I find that sticking to the precepts against one's desires is a positive practice that can be transformative. I don't use the word "ego" in a Buddhist context, since no similar concept appears in the Buddhist texts I study (see my various posts on Self/Ego), but I find the greatest challenge to one's likes and dislikes, to one's sense of entitlement and ownership, is to take on the precepts seriously as a spiritual practice. To place limits on oneself, to take them on as an austerity if you like.
Indeed I think if one takes the practice of sīla seriously then 'realisations' come out of that. By struggling against what one 'wants' one sees the process of desires and grasping in action and can create opportunities to let go, to 'see through' (vipassana). By contrast simply giving in to desire creates no opportunities.
By taking the precepts seriously, taking the practice to the level of body, speech and especially *mind*, and not looking at one aspect in isolation, I do not believe that inflation would be a problem for anyone for any length of time. The precepts are purposefully deflationary. They are extremely difficult to perfect and one is constantly failing. In my context a serious practitioner is expected to acknowledge broken precepts in a confession. So inflation is simply not an issue.
What's more I have found that in acting more wholesomely than comes naturally, one experiences the wholesome state of mind that the precept is an exemplification of. It's rather like looking at great art, or listening to great music - the mind can be lifted by experience, even vicariously. One doesn't need to feel it to start with only to 'act as if'. But the feeling comes along. What one takes on arbitrarily to begin with with becomes natural. The mind is actually changed by what the body does because the two are not separate.
I think this is well backed up by work with addiction - the way to beat an addiction is abstinence. This is because dabbling leads to relapse - any addict will tell you this.
The idea of moderate vices I dealt with in the essay itself.
"Just deal with the karma"... for someone so against ego your whole approach to ethics seems strangely focussed on personal consequences. Ethics is about your impact on the world, not vice versa.
'"Just deal with the karma"... for someone so against ego your whole approach to ethics seems strangely focussed on personal consequences. Ethics is about your impact on the world, not vice versa. '
Repression has an impact on the world as well. For example, many of the problems with sexual abuse in spiritual communities is due to repression. Trying to push the precepts too hard slides very easily into repression, which then pops out in all kinds of ways.
So, if you can uphold the precepts by facing and then letting go of your cravings rather than repressing them, awesome. But if you can't, then I'm not so sure that you're better off repressing them rather than succumbing to them—if you do your level best to minimize the harm that comes from that.
But then I don't have 15 years of practice to draw from; I just have 39 years of life and a little over a year of practice.
(Also, I'm not against ego. That would be silly.)
Sorry, I don't have sources about chemistry in India to hand. I'm going by my previous reading on the history of science.
Mindlessness is the key, not the substance consumed. Alcohol has long been used by Indian tribals and Mexican Mayans for ceremonial purposes - it has a spiritual place, rather than a crutch or for the sole goal of inebriation for the sake of it. One can also be intoxicated by drugs that are also important medicines, eg opiates, benzodiazapams, etc. Sweet and fattening food and caffeine can also be psychological crutches that can cause damage to the body, but we still have tea and biscuits after meditation!
The spirit of the fifth precept is not, in my mind, to establish a dogma like Islam that sets rules on what you should consume, but rather to make you consider your own intent and the effects of consuming something. Drinking in moderation doesn't damage the body or necessarily cause one to become heedless. If you have self-control and awareness, you should be able to drink without causing heedlessness. If you don't have self-control and are a person inclined to substance abuse for whatever reason, then you can just as likely be addicted to otherwise innocuous substances and behaviour.
Believe it or not, I have a problem with polo mints! I've moved to sugar-free polos to save my teeth and pancreas and I know if I eat too much I will get diarrhoea. They are a personal crutch, although I am unlikely to crash my car after gobbing them. In relation to the precept, getting myself off habitual polo sucking is more pressing than stopping the couple of glasses of wine or beer I enjoy once or twice a week (and which I know I don't need, having easily gone without alcohol for long periods).
I believe I covered all of these "let outs" in the post except ceremonial use.
I'm not aware that alcohol has any beneficial properties as a ceremonial drug - as psychedelics might be argued to do. I know too many people who were switched on to the meditation by LSD to argue against it in any absolute way. Without alcohol, it has been argued by some, the English would never breed - so inhibited are they in the presence of the opposite sex. So perhaps it has a role there ;-)
I don't think it is a 'let out' to drink alcohol only in moderation. The relationship with alcohol and its effects are more important than just drinking the odd glass, just like anything one can become addicted to. And I don't think that I am responsible for others' alcoholism if I drink sensibly; it's their responsibility, not mine. The issue for me is the attachment to outside stimulus, whether alcohol, narcotics, sex or cream buns. For some, it may be necessary to go without alcohol entirely due to dependency or routine drunkeness. For others, it may be necessary to be adopt a celebate lifestyle, something that is not forbidden among the ordained in the Triratna Buddhist Community. If celebacy is not enforced, then why enforce abstinence?
I think perhaps the move away from the specific points I was making with regard to alcohol, intoxication and the 5th precept and onto morality generally and hypothetically is unhelpful. For instance you speculate about the causes of what you call "sexual abuse" in "spiritual communities". As Buddhists we can get lost in these abstract discussions about possibilities and the motives of people who act in monstrous ways. But most of us are not monsters, we don't rape or murder, or abuse. So those kinds of examples while exciting strong emotions are not that relevant to me or you. Rape is not something I am currently struggling to give up, it is something that has always been completely out of the question for me!!!
My essay is about how to interpret the 5th precept, and what kinds of things to consider if you do drink. There's some good stuff there I think: personal and social consequences, statistics, textual quotes, questions to reflect on. It's food for thought, and it needs thinking about. I just stopped drinking one day 18 years ago, before I became a Buddhist, and have never had a single moment of regret. Other things have been more difficult to let go of, but once you know they are unwholesome it creates a dissonance in your life if you keep doing them.
As I understand it you are concerned that refraining from harmful behaviour will somehow cause you to act out unskilful urges in other ways. You, for instance, associate "sexual abuse" with repression, though presumably not from experience!
Let's bring it down to a level that we both actually work on. If you stop eating meat what happens? You crave meat. How long do you crave meat? A week? A month? A year? (I suppose it was about 6 months in my case). How bad is craving meat for you? Would you kill for meat? How unwholesomely would you act in order to obtain meat? Would the resulting unwholesome behaviour outweigh the benefits? Indeed are you clear about the benefits of not eating meat? Then, what happens if you reflect on the life of the animal that was killed, does that have any impact on you emotionally? Do you like animals? Have you seen how farm animals live? Have you seen an animal killed? Have you seen the way mother animals protect their baby, or heard a cow bellow when her calf is kidnapped? Have you seen an animal struggle to survive? What is your response to these reflections? (rhetorical question).
"Some people" might respond by being inflated or finding other ways to fulfil an unwholesome desire, but the "some people" case is a straw man argument (and generally speaking no Buddhist ever admits their own inflation or egotism, but only points it out in other people). "Some people" are irrelevant because you don't base your moral decisions on what "some people" do or say, you base them on what you personally know to be wholesome and unwholesome. Buddhism encourages inquiry into your understanding of what is wholesome or not. Such knowledge as you gain will come with it's own imperatives, and again Buddhism encourages you to follow your conscience when you know something to be unwholesome. As I say, not doing so creates a dissonance - an incongruence that will certainly hold you back spiritually. That's just a fact of life unfortunately - the knowledge of good and evil has consequences.
This is how precepts work as a spiritual practice rather than a series of arbitrary rules - at least this is how they work for me after 15 years of trying them out, and having made a lifetime commitment to the precepts 5 years ago. I find the precepts helpful and keeping them, and repairing breaches of them, a positive practice. Not one I have perfected by any means, but one I enjoy working on. Renunciation is like casting of ballast from a hot-air balloon - one is lighter and freer as a result!
I don't mention enforcement. So what are you talking about? Hmmm?
I do suggest that by participating in the alcohol economy that you help to sustain an industry that produces a harmful product, which kills about 25 people per day in the UK. Whether you feel you want to continue to participate in supporting that industry is up to you. I'm just pointing out the facts.
I dealt with the "moderation" argument at some length in the essay. I also dealt with the what the formulation of the precept means, and how it should be interpreted. Perhaps you could revise those sections?
The basis for my translation, definition and interpretation is clearly set out, and is not something I just made up. The Buddha clearly intended his followers not drink alcohol (specifically and explicitly) and not take other intoxicants (by inference) - if the Pāli Canon is any guide to what the Buddha intended that is.
Cheers Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
Anonymous said...
Hmmmmm, I wrote some comments too about this subject not to long ago. My conclusions were reached based on reading books and inernet comments by Buddhist scholars, by Islamic scholars, by western psychologists,( I will not name names to protect the guilty but even more so because I am terrible with names and I am not a Universighty Proffessor who feels in neccessary to footnote my sources) by my own background of having been raised a in the Catholic Church, but mostly by my own readings of the misery caused by people who have had to much to drink. I think that it would be a benifit for mankind if everyone quite drinking alchohol. Most people can use alchohol responsibly but some people can not. Those who drink responsibly would say why should we be punished for the irresponsiblity of others. I would say that you, as a drinker are not really giving up all that much. By giving up drinking you will be helping others by making it easier for those who do not drink responsibly to not drink at all. End of part One. Part Two: Exceptions Exceptions can be made for important festivals. During the festival an adult can drink 2 alcoholic beverages per day. Part Three; Exceptions to the exception: Clearly any festival that lasts more than 364 days per year can not be included under the exception for festivals. Goal: To eliminate irresponsible drinking by greatly reducing the opportunties for irresponsible drinking. To eliminate irresponsible drinking by creating social conditions in which drunkeness is not tolerated. Good Example; Festival days during a calander year are New Years, Fat Tueday or Super Bowl Sunday, Passover, Easter, Labor Day (May 1st) US Memorial Day, Independence Day or Bastille Day, Harvest Celebration Day, and Battle of Trenton or Christmas Day, your anniversary day, your 30th, 40th, 50th.....birthday. A better example, New Years, May 8th or Independence Day, or July 20th, Thanksgiving, Christmas. Another good example, No festivals are celebrated with alchohol.
The most important thing to remember is that we are free. We are not bound by anything that anyone, including a God or a Buddha has written in the past. If one truth were known it would be that I am the worlds worst Buddha. That makes me the world's best Buddha in my arrogant opinion. There are a billion Buddha's on this world more awake than me. Yet what I the spaced out Buddha thinks is really really important is that life is not only a sacred mission it is also a sick joke. Sometimes we need to be deadly serious and sometimes we need to not take life seriously at all. When to do which is an art it is not a science. Curt
@Jayarava, thanks for your very thoughtful response to my musings. I will consider what you said. Perhaps I'll feel differently about this in another 14 years.
As I've said before, we should never lead a moral life because we think its the right thing to do, we should make some effort to see WHY its the right thing to do. The precepts are a good guideline, but understanding why is much more important.
Congratulations for your blog - the analysis of ancient terms terms is quite useful.
If you´re willing, I would love to have the opportunity to ask you some questions, so I can clarify things better with my students. Since Zen is based on kanji, I have no knowledge of pali or sanscrit and this is the first time I´ve seen a site that helps me understand some of it - and it´s interesting to see how much has been KEPT, not lost, in translation to kanji...
Looking for more discussions of the terms used in "taking the precepts" ceremonies, I clicked on "ethics" on your "Label Cloud" on your lateral bar.
My browser blocked the next page from loading, with a warning saying (translating from the portuguese) "the the visit to this site could damage you computer. The site on jayarava.blogspot.com contains elements from the site www.passenlaw.com which appears to host malwares...".
I certainly do not believe you would involve yourself with malware, but I have heard of plenty of cases where hackers have invaded Buddhist sites (and other honest sites) without their knowing it and caussed a lot of headaches... .
I looked for a contact form or way to contact you directly to ask you if you know anything about this, but couldn´t find anything, so I am using the comment box.
Please feel free to delete or edit this comment afterwards.
All the best, in Dharma Isshin
Here´s the original version of the warning: Aviso: A visita a este site pode prejudicar seu computador. O site em jayarava.blogspot.com contém elementos do site www.passenlaw.com que parece hospedar malwares (softwares que podem danificar o seu computador ou podem agir sem o seu consentimento). Uma simples visita a um site que contém malware pode infectar o seu computador. Para obter informações detalhadas sobre os problemas com esses elementos, visite a Página de diagnóstico de Navegação segura. do Google para www.passenlaw.com. Saiba mais sobre como se proteger do software prejudicial on-line.
Thanks for letting me know about that problem. I have no problems clicking on the same link. There's no malware on the site.
Strangely the link is to what seems like a law firm based in Chicago who specialise in personal injury, which I have no reason to have had contact with. There's nothing sinister about that website.
I guess we know that the society of that writer of Proverbs was, with hardly an exception, a wine drinking society. Of course, they hardly ever drank it neat, but mixed it with water, which not only made it go further, but also helped to neutralize some of the inevitable microorganisms that could have caused sickness. By strong drink he or she probably just meant undiluted wine.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Anonymous said...
You said, "I'm not aware that alcohol has any beneficial properties as a ceremonial drug." Your non-Jewishness is showing. During certain ceremonies it's required to display happiness, and believe me, a glass of wine can help a lot (with the display, not necessarily the happiness). There's one holiday that requires 4 glasses, because it's not the happiest of them perhaps, except the part about getting out of Egypt alive. La-chaim!
I undertake the training principle of abstaining from intoxicating drinks and negligent states of intoxication.
~~~~
Of all the precepts this one is probably the one most commonly fudged. I know a lot of Buddhists who like a drink, and a few who take recreational drugs. I'll try to avoid being moralistic, but I want to explore the fifth precept and its implications.
Let's start with the translation. Although the first three words (which I have joined with hyphens) are often seen written as separate, the first two don't have inflections, and therefore the three must a single compound: surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭḥānā which will require some unpacking. The word surāmeraya is itself a compound: surā and meraya are synonyms for intoxicating drinks. Surā possibly comes from the root √su meaning to 'press out' (from which we get the Vedic soma, the drug used by the early Vedic poets). While some information has been lost on what exactly these words refer to, the dictionaries link surā to distillation. I'm not sure what the level of technology was in the the Buddha's day - perhaps they were making distilled liquors then? The Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary (MW) suggests that it originally referred to a kind of beer (remembering that the earliest Vedic texts predate the Iron Age by some centuries). Meraya seems to have more or less the same reference, and is found in combination with surā more often than not (even in Vedic texts). Majja (Sanskrit madya) is a third almost synonymous word, though in this case more clearly related to mada from √mad 'intoxication'. I suspect that at the time the distinctions might have been more meaningful, although it is a feature of Pāli literature to use synonyms for emphasis. The intention seems to be to cover all kinds of intoxicating drinks, and probably all forms of intoxication.
The same root √mad occurs in the next word - pamāda - which is often translated as 'negligence'. [1] Keep in mind that in Buddhist texts the opposite appamāda 'vigilance' is almost always associated with objects of the senses - and is akin to 'guarding the gates of the senses'. The word ṭhāna means 'a state', so pamādaṭṭhāna is a state of negligence, especially with respect to the senses.
So the compound surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā unpacks as: 'intoxicating drinks and negligent states of intoxication'.
The rest of the formula - veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi - is relatively straight forward. The verb is samādiyati 'to take upon oneself, to undertake' in the first person singular: 'I undertake'. Veramaṇī is 'abstaining'. Sikkhapāda is a compound with sikkhā meaning 'training, discipline, precept', while pada here is 'an item': so sikkhāpada is a training rule or training principle, i.e. a precept. Note that the precepts are not really 'given' or 'taken' from another person. The form is 'I undertake', it is an individual act of will, a personal undertaking, though making a public declaration of one's intention to undertake this training usually indicates a deeper commitment to the training.
It is worth making the point that in the Buddha's day the attitude to alcohol was very different to our Anglo-Saxon attitude. This is brought out in in stark terms in the Dhammika Sutta:
The householder who finds pleasure in this Dhamma,
Should not practice drinking alcohol;
Should not cause any other good person to drink,
Knowing it leads to madness.
Intoxicated, they foolishly do evil,
And cause other negligent people to do likewise.
This occasion for disgrace should be avoided,
This crazy, idiotic pleasure of fools. [2]
Although some 'sophisticated' urban Indians have started drinking like Westerners, amongst the poorer and rural Indians that I know, drinking is still seen as a great evil. Of course drinking patterns in Europe and its colonies have typically been different. This does not mean that drink is not a great social evil in West. As the UK Office of National Statistics says:
The number of alcohol-related deaths in the United Kingdom has consistently increased since the early 1990s, rising from the lowest figure of 4,023 (6.7 per 100,000) in 1992 to the highest of 9,031 (13.6 per 100,000) in 2008. [3]
That's about 25 people per day dying alcohol related deaths in 2008, and doubling in the last 18 years. [4] Those people have families and loved ones who are affected by their deaths; by their drinking habits; by their behaviour. In the UK alcohol deaths far outstrip all other drugs combined except tobacco which kills more than 80,000 people a year on its own (and for what one wonders?). Alcohol is responsible for thee times as many deaths as road accidents, although clearly alcohol is also a major factor in causing road accidents. There is no doubt that alcohol is a major problem in the UK. Imagine if, instead of reporting the names of the soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan each day, a list of people who died alcohol related deaths in the UK (or wherever you live) were read on the news each day? In the USA the situation is very similar:
[Image]
via +Vox
One of the arguments about unethical products is that by not participating in the process of production, distribution and consumption we make that product marginally less profitable. By not eating meat, for instance, we reduce the demand for meat generally and this has an effect on the industry, making it marginally less profitable. Collectively we can have a great effect. It's worth considering that while you personally might not have a problem with alcohol, that on balance society does. By consuming it you help to keep the product economically viable and contribute indirectly to all the problems that alcohol creates. Is your personal pleasure at drinking enough to justify participating in the production of a substance that kills so many people?
Of course the Buddhist drinker will usually argue that they do not drink very much, do not drink to excess, do not drink so that their "mindfulness is impaired" (as I have often heard). And perhaps this is true. Perhaps the are right to argue that it is the 'spirit' of the precept rather than the letter that should apply. However it's hard to tell how much alcohol it takes to affect your mind, partly because alcohol itself makes this kind of judgement more difficult - alcohol impairs judgement. I note for instance that over the years the acceptable level of alcohol when driving has consistently gone down, and that some authorities say that the limit should be zero. The argument on how much is too much is clearly not settled, but the cut-off has trended downward as investigations have intensified into the effects of alcohol on the brain.
Another 'let off clause' is that medical journalists have reported that drinking alcohol can actually be good for your health. Fully unpacking the problems with this would take an essay in its own right. The story on the health benefits from alcohol, and the type of alcohol involved, has changed regularly and considerably over the years. Some of the studies employed doubtful methods. Not every study has been able to confirm the health benefits found in the others, so there is no consensus. The issue is not clear, but journalists are not really interested in scientific process, and medical journalism is still about selling newspapers. If one is using popular press stories to justify stretching a precept that is shaky ground to take a stand on.
We often look for ways to rationalise our lax ethics. We cite the Aristotelian motto "moderation in all things" as a formulation of the middle way that allows for some moderate vices.[5] One needs to be clear about how the Buddha saw his middle way playing out in lifestyle terms. To the Buddha the idea lifestyle was to reject family, work, holidays, status, and possessions generally; to live simply, live on handouts, eat only once per day and then only enough to sustain your body; and importantly in this context he was insistent that the middle way did not include any intoxication at all. So if we want to cite the middle way as a guide for our lifestyle, then we need to be prepared to really take it on.
I take the spirit of the precept to extend beyond alcohol to include all sources of intoxication and intoxicated states (pamādaṭṭḥānā). It could conceivably also cover such things as television, films, and the internet as well (gulp!). Anything we turn to repeatedly in order to alter our perceptions to make our present experience more pleasurable has the potential to become intoxicating and addictive. And this is the heart of the problem with intoxicants - in taking them we are pursuing pleasure, or perhaps avoiding misery, in the mistaken view that by increasing the amount of pleasure we experience the happier we will be. This is the fundamental error of the unenlightened; this is how people get hooked. Not only does pursuing pleasure not lead to happiness, it actually has the opposite effect though we find it hard to see the cause and effect because we have a wrong view about it.
This is not to damn pleasure, only the unhealthy pursuit of it. Pleasure, in and of itself, is not the problem. Intoxication is. Hence the fifth precept is not simply tacked onto the end of a list of four important ethical training principles. It is not there to make Buddhists behave themselves; not a penitential after-thought; nor there simply to make up the numbers. It's not about being a 'good Buddhist'. The avoidance of intoxication is at the heart of the Buddha's transformative program; and if we take the Buddha seriously, we must also take the fifth precept seriously.
~~oOo~~
Notes
I've written before about my research into the words pamāda and appamāda and how in practice they relate to intoxication with the objects of the senses in my essay: The Buddha's Last Words, which is also summarised as a blog post: The Last Words of the Buddha.
Dhammika Sutta, Sutta-nipāta. Sn 398-9. My translation. Pāli text from tipitaka.org.
www.statistics.gov.uk
By contrast the UK recently made the drug Mephedrone illegal on the basis of reports of a possible 25 deaths since its introduction, though as I understand it none of these cases have been proven, and in at least two cases Mephedrone has subsequently been proved not to have been involved.
My, admittedly shallow, reading of Aristotle is that he thought it ethical to satisfy natural desires, such as thirst and hunger, but going beyond that was profligacy and therefore blameworthy. The question then is whether the desire for intoxication is 'natural'. The Buddha's position on this, as I understand it, is that it is not natural.
_____________________
25 Sept 2010. This post generated a lot of comments which explore the issue further. I did not at the time draw attention to the 17th of Dr Ambedkars 22 conversion vows:
I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs etc.
Note the unequivocal phrasing here!
_____________________
22 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formIt's highly unlikely that distillation was known in the Buddha's time. The first evidence of it is from the 2nd century CE, and alcohol is known to have been distilled around the 12th century.
Personally, my main beef with your interpretation of the fifth precept is the same one I have about vegetarianism/veganism. It's incredibly easy to latch onto food taboos, and turn them into props for the ego. There's a very short step from resolving to stick to the fifth precept—or resolving to abstain from meat, or all animal products—to a self-righteous moralism, which, I'm pretty sure, is *not* a good thing—even if you have the social grace to only think it and not actually shove it in people's faces.
IOW, my take is that if you can abstain from alcohol without "being a teetotaller," or not eat meat without "being a vegan," that's most definitely a good thing. But if the choice is between occasional consumption of meat and alcohol and "becoming a vegan" or "becoming a teetotaller," I think it just might be better to eat that steak, drink that beer, and then deal with the karma.
My teacher once said in a teisho that he thinks that it's not a great idea to stick too closely to the Precepts until you've had a few realizations; otherwise you just risk getting stuck on them, and they become an impediment on the path rather than an aid. (As far as I know, he neither eats meat nor drinks alcohol.)
Friday, July 16, 2010
Alcohol issue is straightforward, but what's with the psychedelics? Most of them aren't pleasurable per se and yield no "mindless acting".
Friday, July 16, 2010
Hi Petteri
Do you have sources on alcohol in ancient India? I'm interested to follow up.
Although my argument above is intellectual, my conviction is another thing. I do not rely on what any 'teacher' says because I have 15 years of practice of my own to draw on when thinking about this stuff. In practice I find that sticking to the precepts against one's desires is a positive practice that can be transformative. I don't use the word "ego" in a Buddhist context, since no similar concept appears in the Buddhist texts I study (see my various posts on Self/Ego), but I find the greatest challenge to one's likes and dislikes, to one's sense of entitlement and ownership, is to take on the precepts seriously as a spiritual practice. To place limits on oneself, to take them on as an austerity if you like.
Indeed I think if one takes the practice of sīla seriously then 'realisations' come out of that. By struggling against what one 'wants' one sees the process of desires and grasping in action and can create opportunities to let go, to 'see through' (vipassana). By contrast simply giving in to desire creates no opportunities.
By taking the precepts seriously, taking the practice to the level of body, speech and especially *mind*, and not looking at one aspect in isolation, I do not believe that inflation would be a problem for anyone for any length of time. The precepts are purposefully deflationary. They are extremely difficult to perfect and one is constantly failing. In my context a serious practitioner is expected to acknowledge broken precepts in a confession. So inflation is simply not an issue.
What's more I have found that in acting more wholesomely than comes naturally, one experiences the wholesome state of mind that the precept is an exemplification of. It's rather like looking at great art, or listening to great music - the mind can be lifted by experience, even vicariously. One doesn't need to feel it to start with only to 'act as if'. But the feeling comes along. What one takes on arbitrarily to begin with with becomes natural. The mind is actually changed by what the body does because the two are not separate.
I think this is well backed up by work with addiction - the way to beat an addiction is abstinence. This is because dabbling leads to relapse - any addict will tell you this.
The idea of moderate vices I dealt with in the essay itself.
"Just deal with the karma"... for someone so against ego your whole approach to ethics seems strangely focussed on personal consequences. Ethics is about your impact on the world, not vice versa.
Thanks for commenting
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
Zui
I presume you have never taken psychedelics...
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
'"Just deal with the karma"... for someone so against ego your whole approach to ethics seems strangely focussed on personal consequences. Ethics is about your impact on the world, not vice versa. '
Repression has an impact on the world as well. For example, many of the problems with sexual abuse in spiritual communities is due to repression. Trying to push the precepts too hard slides very easily into repression, which then pops out in all kinds of ways.
So, if you can uphold the precepts by facing and then letting go of your cravings rather than repressing them, awesome. But if you can't, then I'm not so sure that you're better off repressing them rather than succumbing to them—if you do your level best to minimize the harm that comes from that.
But then I don't have 15 years of practice to draw from; I just have 39 years of life and a little over a year of practice.
(Also, I'm not against ego. That would be silly.)
Sorry, I don't have sources about chemistry in India to hand. I'm going by my previous reading on the history of science.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Mindlessness is the key, not the substance consumed. Alcohol has long been used by Indian tribals and Mexican Mayans for ceremonial purposes - it has a spiritual place, rather than a crutch or for the sole goal of inebriation for the sake of it. One can also be intoxicated by drugs that are also important medicines, eg opiates, benzodiazapams, etc. Sweet and fattening food and caffeine can also be psychological crutches that can cause damage to the body, but we still have tea and biscuits after meditation!
The spirit of the fifth precept is not, in my mind, to establish a dogma like Islam that sets rules on what you should consume, but rather to make you consider your own intent and the effects of consuming something. Drinking in moderation doesn't damage the body or necessarily cause one to become heedless. If you have self-control and awareness, you should be able to drink without causing heedlessness. If you don't have self-control and are a person inclined to substance abuse for whatever reason, then you can just as likely be addicted to otherwise innocuous substances and behaviour.
Believe it or not, I have a problem with polo mints! I've moved to sugar-free polos to save my teeth and pancreas and I know if I eat too much I will get diarrhoea. They are a personal crutch, although I am unlikely to crash my car after gobbing them. In relation to the precept, getting myself off habitual polo sucking is more pressing than stopping the couple of glasses of wine or beer I enjoy once or twice a week (and which I know I don't need, having easily gone without alcohol for long periods).
Friday, July 16, 2010
@Delta Pavonis
I believe I covered all of these "let outs" in the post except ceremonial use.
I'm not aware that alcohol has any beneficial properties as a ceremonial drug - as psychedelics might be argued to do. I know too many people who were switched on to the meditation by LSD to argue against it in any absolute way. Without alcohol, it has been argued by some, the English would never breed - so inhibited are they in the presence of the opposite sex. So perhaps it has a role there ;-)
Regards
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
I don't think it is a 'let out' to drink alcohol only in moderation. The relationship with alcohol and its effects are more important than just drinking the odd glass, just like anything one can become addicted to. And I don't think that I am responsible for others' alcoholism if I drink sensibly; it's their responsibility, not mine. The issue for me is the attachment to outside stimulus, whether alcohol, narcotics, sex or cream buns. For some, it may be necessary to go without alcohol entirely due to dependency or routine drunkeness. For others, it may be necessary to be adopt a celebate lifestyle, something that is not forbidden among the ordained in the Triratna Buddhist Community. If celebacy is not enforced, then why enforce abstinence?
Friday, July 16, 2010
@Petteri
I think perhaps the move away from the specific points I was making with regard to alcohol, intoxication and the 5th precept and onto morality generally and hypothetically is unhelpful. For instance you speculate about the causes of what you call "sexual abuse" in "spiritual communities". As Buddhists we can get lost in these abstract discussions about possibilities and the motives of people who act in monstrous ways. But most of us are not monsters, we don't rape or murder, or abuse. So those kinds of examples while exciting strong emotions are not that relevant to me or you. Rape is not something I am currently struggling to give up, it is something that has always been completely out of the question for me!!!
My essay is about how to interpret the 5th precept, and what kinds of things to consider if you do drink. There's some good stuff there I think: personal and social consequences, statistics, textual quotes, questions to reflect on. It's food for thought, and it needs thinking about. I just stopped drinking one day 18 years ago, before I became a Buddhist, and have never had a single moment of regret. Other things have been more difficult to let go of, but once you know they are unwholesome it creates a dissonance in your life if you keep doing them.
As I understand it you are concerned that refraining from harmful behaviour will somehow cause you to act out unskilful urges in other ways. You, for instance, associate "sexual abuse" with repression, though presumably not from experience!
Let's bring it down to a level that we both actually work on. If you stop eating meat what happens? You crave meat. How long do you crave meat? A week? A month? A year? (I suppose it was about 6 months in my case). How bad is craving meat for you? Would you kill for meat? How unwholesomely would you act in order to obtain meat? Would the resulting unwholesome behaviour outweigh the benefits? Indeed are you clear about the benefits of not eating meat? Then, what happens if you reflect on the life of the animal that was killed, does that have any impact on you emotionally? Do you like animals? Have you seen how farm animals live? Have you seen an animal killed? Have you seen the way mother animals protect their baby, or heard a cow bellow when her calf is kidnapped? Have you seen an animal struggle to survive? What is your response to these reflections? (rhetorical question).
"Some people" might respond by being inflated or finding other ways to fulfil an unwholesome desire, but the "some people" case is a straw man argument (and generally speaking no Buddhist ever admits their own inflation or egotism, but only points it out in other people). "Some people" are irrelevant because you don't base your moral decisions on what "some people" do or say, you base them on what you personally know to be wholesome and unwholesome. Buddhism encourages inquiry into your understanding of what is wholesome or not. Such knowledge as you gain will come with it's own imperatives, and again Buddhism encourages you to follow your conscience when you know something to be unwholesome. As I say, not doing so creates a dissonance - an incongruence that will certainly hold you back spiritually. That's just a fact of life unfortunately - the knowledge of good and evil has consequences.
This is how precepts work as a spiritual practice rather than a series of arbitrary rules - at least this is how they work for me after 15 years of trying them out, and having made a lifetime commitment to the precepts 5 years ago. I find the precepts helpful and keeping them, and repairing breaches of them, a positive practice. Not one I have perfected by any means, but one I enjoy working on. Renunciation is like casting of ballast from a hot-air balloon - one is lighter and freer as a result!
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
@Delta Pavonis
I don't mention enforcement. So what are you talking about? Hmmm?
I do suggest that by participating in the alcohol economy that you help to sustain an industry that produces a harmful product, which kills about 25 people per day in the UK. Whether you feel you want to continue to participate in supporting that industry is up to you. I'm just pointing out the facts.
I dealt with the "moderation" argument at some length in the essay. I also dealt with the what the formulation of the precept means, and how it should be interpreted. Perhaps you could revise those sections?
The basis for my translation, definition and interpretation is clearly set out, and is not something I just made up. The Buddha clearly intended his followers not drink alcohol (specifically and explicitly) and not take other intoxicants (by inference) - if the Pāli Canon is any guide to what the Buddha intended that is.
Cheers
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
Hmmmmm, I wrote some comments too about this subject not to long ago.
My conclusions were reached based on reading books and inernet comments by Buddhist scholars, by Islamic scholars, by western psychologists,( I will not name names to protect the guilty but even more so because I am terrible with names and I am not a Universighty Proffessor who feels in neccessary to footnote my sources) by my own background of having been raised a in the Catholic Church, but mostly by my own readings of the misery caused by people who have had to much to drink.
I think that it would be a benifit for mankind if everyone quite drinking alchohol. Most people can use alchohol responsibly but some people can not.
Those who drink responsibly would say why should we be punished for the irresponsiblity of others. I would say that you, as a drinker are not really giving up all that much. By giving up drinking you will be helping others by making it easier for those who do not drink responsibly to not drink at all. End of part One.
Part Two: Exceptions
Exceptions can be made for important festivals. During the festival an adult can drink 2 alcoholic beverages per day.
Part Three;
Exceptions to the exception:
Clearly any festival that lasts more than 364 days per year can not be included under the exception for festivals.
Goal: To eliminate irresponsible drinking by greatly reducing the opportunties for irresponsible drinking. To eliminate irresponsible drinking by creating social conditions in which drunkeness is not tolerated.
Good Example; Festival days during a calander year are New Years, Fat Tueday or Super Bowl Sunday, Passover, Easter, Labor Day (May 1st) US Memorial Day, Independence Day or Bastille Day,
Harvest Celebration Day, and Battle of Trenton or Christmas Day, your anniversary day, your 30th, 40th, 50th.....birthday.
A better example, New Years, May 8th or Independence Day, or July 20th, Thanksgiving, Christmas.
Another good example, No festivals are celebrated with alchohol.
The most important thing to remember is that we are free. We are not bound by anything that anyone, including a God or a Buddha has written in the past. If one truth were known it would be that I am the worlds worst Buddha. That makes me the world's best Buddha in my arrogant opinion. There are a billion Buddha's on this world more awake than me. Yet what I the spaced out Buddha thinks is really really important is that life is not only a sacred mission it is also a sick joke. Sometimes we need to be deadly serious and sometimes we need to not take life seriously at all. When to do which is an art it is not a science.
Curt
Friday, July 16, 2010
@Delta Pavonis
Sorry your five minutes are definitely up. Go and have a beer and calm down.
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
@Jayarava, thanks for your very thoughtful response to my musings. I will consider what you said. Perhaps I'll feel differently about this in another 14 years.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Hi Petteri
Well thanks for your thoughtful musings. I will always argue the point, but that doesn't mean I'm right :-)
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Friday, July 16, 2010
As I've said before, we should never lead a moral life because we think its the right thing to do, we should make some effort to see WHY its the right thing to do. The precepts are a good guideline, but understanding why is much more important.
Nice post.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Hi Kyle
Yeah. One has to think about why one acts one way or another. Imagining yourself in the shoes of others is really important.
Enjoying your blog at the moment. Very feisty!
Jayarava
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Congratulations for your blog - the analysis of ancient terms terms is quite useful.
If you´re willing, I would love to have the opportunity to ask you some questions, so I can clarify things better with my students. Since Zen is based on kanji, I have no knowledge of pali or sanscrit and this is the first time I´ve seen a site that helps me understand some of it - and it´s interesting to see how much has been KEPT, not lost, in translation to kanji...
Looking for more discussions of the terms used in "taking the precepts" ceremonies, I clicked on "ethics" on your "Label Cloud" on your lateral bar.
My browser blocked the next page from loading, with a warning saying (translating from the portuguese) "the the visit to this site could damage you computer. The site on jayarava.blogspot.com contains elements from the site
www.passenlaw.com which appears to host malwares...".
I certainly do not believe you would involve yourself with malware, but I have heard of plenty of cases where hackers have invaded Buddhist sites (and other honest sites) without their knowing it and caussed a lot of headaches... .
I looked for a contact form or way to contact you directly to ask you if you know anything about this, but couldn´t find anything, so I am using the comment box.
Please feel free to delete or edit this comment afterwards.
All the best,
in Dharma
Isshin
Here´s the original version of the warning:
Aviso: A visita a este site pode prejudicar seu computador.
O site em jayarava.blogspot.com contém elementos do site www.passenlaw.com que parece hospedar malwares (softwares que podem danificar o seu computador ou podem agir sem o seu consentimento). Uma simples visita a um site que contém malware pode infectar o seu computador.
Para obter informações detalhadas sobre os problemas com esses elementos, visite a Página de diagnóstico de Navegação segura. do Google para www.passenlaw.com.
Saiba mais sobre como se proteger do software prejudicial on-line.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Hi Isshin
Thanks for letting me know about that problem. I have no problems clicking on the same link. There's no malware on the site.
Strangely the link is to what seems like a law firm based in Chicago who specialise in personal injury, which I have no reason to have had contact with. There's nothing sinister about that website.
I suggest you clear your cache and try it again.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Came across this today:
"wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging;
And whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
- Proverbs 20.1.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
I guess we know that the society of that writer of Proverbs was, with hardly an exception, a wine drinking society. Of course, they hardly ever drank it neat, but mixed it with water, which not only made it go further, but also helped to neutralize some of the inevitable microorganisms that could have caused sickness. By strong drink he or she probably just meant undiluted wine.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
You said, "I'm not aware that alcohol has any beneficial properties as a ceremonial drug." Your non-Jewishness is showing. During certain ceremonies it's required to display happiness, and believe me, a glass of wine can help a lot (with the display, not necessarily the happiness). There's one holiday that requires 4 glasses, because it's not the happiest of them perhaps, except the part about getting out of Egypt alive. La-chaim!
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
:-)
Wednesday, August 04, 2010