Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Alcohol
karasti
BreathingMinnesota Moderator
I read some of the Pot discussion from earlier in the spring. Of course I realize the 5 precepts for lay people aren't hard-fast rules or commandments that MUST be followed. That they are guidelines and recommendations. But the things I've read have never specified that drugs/alcohol are not to be taken to the point of intoxication, but rather that they ideally will not be used at all. Because of the reasoning of the interference with a clear mind and it's affect on awareness, I took it to mean not to intoxicate the body and brain. As a result, I do enjoy a beer or a glass of wine sometimes. I do not drink to intoxication and haven't in a very long time, and I do not get any sort of buzz. I would not hesitate to drive, take a test or anything else after having one glass or wine or a beer (in most circumstances). It has never affected my mindfulness and it is taken as part of a mindful meal the same way as the rest of the food.
I know no one can say it's fine or it's not fine. I know that it's my call to make but I'm wondering what others practice and how they understand the precept. Do you abstain 100% from all alcohol? Do you partake from time to time? Do you still enjoy a night out with friends at a bar, or have a beer at the ballgame? Do you drink but abstain from intoxication?
I know no one can say it's fine or it's not fine. I know that it's my call to make but I'm wondering what others practice and how they understand the precept. Do you abstain 100% from all alcohol? Do you partake from time to time? Do you still enjoy a night out with friends at a bar, or have a beer at the ballgame? Do you drink but abstain from intoxication?
0
Comments
Personally I have come to the understanding that I do not like the way I feel both during and after taking various forms of intoxicants.
In discussions with my teacher it basically comes down to the individual on how they use and why they use the various forms of intoxicants. She did warn that using intoxicants to mask or hide from pain and suffering was not advisable and would only continue to add to your current delusion. She ended this discussion by saying "after all, why would you want to dilute this gift that eternity has presented you, with a cheap and false high."
I have gotten over the newness of recovery, but I still see a 1000% difference in how I am emotionally, the swings and hangovers.
I think an occasional glass of wine is ok, personally but I have to draw the line at none whatsoever, though to keep the fourth precept I have tried a beer now and then. The first few sips I feel a warm glow but by the end of the first beer I feel dizzy and lose my clarity.
I used to drink coffee like a fiend though. 4-5 cups every morning. I got headaches from not having it, and once I finally stopped cold turkey, I didn't go back. I might have a coffee here and there, but it's pretty rare.
I don't really spend time with anyone who drinks to get intoxicated, as I find I don't like being around people who are not acting real. There has been once or twice since I started practicing mindfulness (which was before I really found Buddhism) where I drank something without eating and it made me tipsy. I can't understand what I found so enjoyable about that in college, but I sure don't like that feeling now.
I did something sooooo uber-dumb when I was 17, that trust me, I never want to abdicate my responsibility to an outside chemical ever again... now, if ever i do drink, 2 sips and i know i gotta stop, right there!
And no, before you ask, I'm not telling you.
I originally stopped drinking because I just decided it didn't impress me. I could have just as much fun with my friends if I had a coke or sprite in my hand as I did with a mixed drink in my hand. In fact, more. And drinking alcoholic beverages was more expensive.
But I will take exception that you know a drink doesn't affect you. Most people who are arrested DUI (for example) say the same thing.
As to alcohol versus allergy medicine -- intent. The intent of your allergy medicine is to improve a medical condition.
And finally, if one chooses to ignore 1 or more of the Precepts because they're not commandments, why isn't it just as wise to ignore any point in Buddhism.
Now, having said all that, don't get me wrong. I hang with people who drink in moderate amounts. I believe that's their choice and I don't criticize them for it. I ignore some aspects of Buddhist thought. I'm just putting forward some different perspectives for you to think about.
It's not the intoxicants but our relationship to them that is important.
I offered to find for friend with a deadly illness & no immune system & zero appetite and starving, some pot cookies. I tested them first without hesitation to make sure they were safe. Never even considered it a perceptual breakage.
Taking something to stupify, is an impotent expression of one's lack of acceptence
of what is, and is sufferings cause.
I'm not throwing the precept to the side. But if you look up the 5 precepts, there are translated any host of ways, and within the local Sangha, it is specified as intoxication that leads to carelessness of the mind, not simply avoiding alcohol.
I just think there are more important things for me to focus on than to worry about whether a 4 ounce glass of wine at dinner is causing me any great issues. It's just not. It certainly doesn't stupify me. If I thought it would make any difference at all in my practice, I would abstain. It's not as if I am resisting giving it up and want to hold on to my right to drink wine. It's just not a big deal either way for me. I feel more troubled by the fact I ordered a steak than the glass of wine.
I think even with the precepts, as with the commandments, people justify their not following them to a degree. Even though it says clearly to cause no harm, people (including myself) eat meat and justify why they do it and how it's causing less harm to do it one way. That it's better to support slaughterhouses and buy meat at the store, that came from animals who are widely known to be vastly abused during their short lives, than it is to humanely catch your own food and take only what you will fully use. I doubt the Buddha could have imagined a life with the type of food system we have, and I highly doubt he'd be supportive of supporting the slaughterhouse lives the animals lead, yet I see plenty of justification for "ignoring" that precept. I'm not trying to be antogonistic or anything, I probably sound upset but I'm not
Also, it may be that as I come along in my practice, I may very well choose to not have wine. There have been many things that have just suddenly changed as I've gone along. I may also decide to give up meat entirely as well. I've only been studying for a matter of months, so I'm sure there are many more changes to come.
After all, the precepts are there as guidelines, it is still up to individual make their own choices associated to their path.
Even in my youth, before my alcoholism really got a grip of me, I once woke up in Hamburg with the roughest woman in Nato and my pockets were full of wood shavings for some reason. On another occasion I woke up in Lille in La Citadel, after a friend and myself had tried to join the French Foreign Legion (I got 28 days in jail for that escapade).
So, I'm tee-total; I've not touched a drop in over 3 years!
I asked not because I seek permission, but because as I stated, I wondered how others handled it, especially after reading the discussions that so many also eat meat against the "do no harm" precept. As I work through everything I learn in Buddhism, I question my motivations for the things that I may do that go against what I learn. In many cases over time I find that those things drop away. I don't think that drinking 4 ounces of wine in a MONTH is affecting my mindfulness on a day-to-day basis. It probably affects me on a miniscule level in the hour it takes my body to process it, yes. But I would be lying if I said I was able to be mindful 100% of 24 hours in a day. I am not. But, it's not as if I look forward for 30 days until I can have that glass of wine. It's not a desire that I have, it's just something that happens. I look over a menu and think "oh, a glass of wine with pasta sounds nice" so that's what I order instead of coffee, milk (which I am allergic to) and pop.
In another sense, me being able to have a very small amount and control is, is leftover from days of living for 15 years with an alcoholic (who sometimes was on the wagon, sometimes off). Saying I "have" to abstain 100%, to me, is a reminder of his lack of control (I mean no offense to anyone who has struggled with alcoholism, I just don't know how to word it better) and it's probably a way of me controlling something that I had little control over in the past (meaning I couldn't control his drinking, but I can control mine) and I'm guessing over time it'll fall off. It is something I will have to further investigate.
Thank you for the replies everyone, they always give me something to think about. More thoughts are always welcome, of course.
I'm going to stick to answering your original question(s); and leave the judgements out of it:
You asked:
"I know no one can say it's fine or it's not fine. I know that it's my call to make but I'm wondering what others practice and how they understand the precept. Do you abstain 100% from all alcohol? Do you partake from time to time? Do you still enjoy a night out with friends at a bar, or have a beer at the ballgame? Do you drink but abstain from intoxication? "
I do not abstain 100% from alcohol. I have an occasional alcoholic drink once in a while. How often? Well last week I had two alcoholic drinks (hours apart) and those were the first drinks I had since nearly 5 months earlier. Obviously, I'm not addicted to booze, nor have I ever been.
I believe the 5th precept is intent on keeping "good practicing Buddhists" from developing attachments and problems to intoxicants. I do not believe it is to be taken to the extreme of No alcohol, ever, under any circumstances. Unless of course you CHOOSE to take it that far, or you are intent on becoming a monastic Buddhist.
I believe it is the intent behind the consumption that matters as well. Am I going out with the intent to get loaded and sloppy -- with friends who also get loaded and sloppy? Not a good intent.
Am I sharing a pitcher of margaritas with 4 other people while chatting and sitting on a friend's patio? Not much of a problem - because I know my (freely chosen) limit is one or two, to avoid 'intoxication'.
I smell some faulty logic somewhere.
But if you don't take heroin, that doesn't mean the heroin is controlling you.
:thumbsup:
@vinlyn (but not meaning YOU in my post, either)
I've also noticed here, and in other forums, that many - not all, but many - people go to great lengths being judgmental, rude, assuming and presumptuous regarding hastily labeling other people as "probably alcoholic" or "probably addicted", being not 'right minded' and being dishonest regarding their motivations and "addictions".
And all this "superior Buddhist who *really* knows the right way to follow the precepts stuff..." from people who don't even know the person asking questions or wondering about these things. All (Buddhist) psychics, apparently.
Sorry, but I find that kind of judgmental labeling and assumptions pretty obnoxious and most decidedly NOT Buddha-like.
But maybe that's just me. :-/
I am not trying to prove that drugs and alcohol are ok. I am trying to prove I am still a person, not something to be looked down upon. People here may not realize they are doing this of course, but it sneaks up on you. It starts off with something very little that they disapprove of, then gets blown out of proportion at times. I'm not mentioning names, but it has happened to me on here.
In those situations I just stop posting. No sense getting into an argument about something that does not need to be argued over.
I agree to not judge people an alcoholic. That's a terrible foul, I think. I gave up alcohol and joined the non-drinker camp and I have a bad streak for drinkers now. Some people who seemed super human, when I was trying to 'fit in to the party', now seem just anxious for the feeling the beer creates, and that's not just brain chemistry of alcohol it's also good times setting whether past or present.
MaryAnne, I also think people are pointing out that even a half beer does affect the brain. Many Buddhists are making quite sincere efforts to avoid craving and for them the single glass of wine may not fit in with their beliefs of sobriety and emotional regulation. Buddhism is a mind science.
Each person knows if it's a problem to their emotions. I think the OP was asking for personal experiences and viewpoints. It is normal for them to defend their way of thinking. It is an error to think they are an alcoholic in denial, though certainly it intersects Buddhism in that alcohol you should embody the energy of what just happened. You can see for yourself how it affects the mind... no hidden agendas or juggling alibis. If you drink don't add a secret identity who is a non-drinker and another identity that gives in because you are 'so good'. Every heard of the good angel and the bad angel? One says we should be moderate and then after a week or so the bad angel says 'oh you've been so good'. So I recommend embodying your decisions Trungpa drank alcohol, though he may have been able to handle it in a unique way available to tulkus (reincarnate lamas) and so forth.
Thank you Jeffrey for the thoughtful response.
You said:
"MaryAnne, I also think people are pointing out that even a half beer does affect the brain. Many Buddhists are making quite sincere efforts to avoid craving and for them the single glass of wine may not fit in with their beliefs of sobriety and emotional regulation. Buddhism is a mind science. "
I completely agree with that -- Yes, even half a beer can affect the brain.
But how does it affect the brain and to what extent?
Everything we eat, do, see, drink, and even THINK affects the brain and how it works (or doesn't work).
Everyday things, like stepping outdoors into bright sunshine affects the brain. Depression affects the brain.
Eating chocolate or drinking coffee affects the brain.
Taking your meds affects the brain / Not taking your meds affects the brain.
Light deprivation affects the brain.
Laughter (or crying) affects the brain.
Love affects the brain; so does hate.
See where I'm going with this?
Everything affects the brain to a high degree, a lesser degree or somewhere in between. Being AWARE of these affects, being not-attached to these effects, being in control of the cravings and need for the things that cause these effects -- THAT'S how to live in a right minded way. (IM very HO)
You are right, for some people this may call for complete abstinence from things such as alcohol or other intoxicants, or whatever it is they have issues with. I understand how that is, because my husband is a recovering alcoholic (17 yrs sober) and he knows he must always abstain. I know several people with assorted addiction issues, most of them sober and in recovery, some not.
But for many people merely limiting things like alcohol or cannabis to an occasional, minimal level is enough to keep them functioning and still balanced, because they are AWARE of where the line is crossed into unawareness and heedlessness (intoxication).
It's unfair for others to assume they can't know that, or really aren't limiting; or are "fooling themselves" by looking for justification or approval.
But one thing about me, I know my body and I know it *very* well. I'm not sharing this so much to make my point, but just as something for people to get to know about me. I am extremely aware of my body and how it functions, and I can read my body before it even shows symptoms of things. I've always been hyper-aware in certain situations, and my body is one of them. Which is why I know that I *can* trust myself when I say that it doesn't affect me on a meaningful level. When I realized that upon waking up, I had to have coffee, I realized that wasn't a place I wanted to be so I stopped drinking it. I did the same with soda. So I do trust myself to know my limits and know when to stop and that when I say "I'm fine having one drink" it really does mean, I am fine. Being tired, being overly excited, drinking caffeine, getting kisses from my little boy, reading certain passages in books, inhaling pollution...all those things have a far more profound effect on my brain and my mindfulness than the very little bit that I do drink. I'm not justifying so I can keep drinking. I'm completely open to the idea that I might just stop one day, like I said. I'm just explaining a little bit about myself.
I've lived with an addict. I grew up with many alcoholics in my life, and yes to an extent I feel a need to justify my thoughts on the topic. Not to myself, but because I know full well what addiction is, and I know it's not something I struggle with because I've taken a path to be very cautious and very aware of what anything I take into my body, does to my body and my mind.
Cannabis isn't a problem, though I haven't had any of that for a long while either. But I mean to say it doesn't interfere with meditation (for me). Alcohol does, not just while I'm drunk; if I drink it will take a long period of sustained practice to regain mindfulness and understanding.
But specifically to your post, there is no precept against stepping out doors into bright sunshine. There is no precept against depression. Or eating chocolate. Or drinking coffee. Or taking prescribed medicine. Or not taking prescribed medicine. Or being deprived of light. Or laughing. Or crying. Or loving.
And if I liked alcohol, I'd probably drink it despite the precept. I didn't quit drinking because of Buddhism. I quit drinking because I just didn't find it to be enjoyable. My father, who was an alcoholic, quit drinking because his doctor said, "You drink, you die. period."
But, there is a precept. And my problem isn't about a person choosing to not follow a precept (in fact, I think a lot of the precepts for monks are foolish), but it's a growing attitude among western Buddhists that ignoring precepts is okay that bothers me. And what I sometimes see on this forum are the same people who criticize others for "cherrypicking" various aspects about Buddhism, but then themselves ignore certain precepts. I simply see a lack of consistency. Which is okay. But also is worth noting.
The last part, it depends who you ask. The Dalai Lama believes caffeine to be included in the list of intoxicants that people should avoid. I read an interview about it earlier today but of course now I can't find it. I'll keep looking!
So how is it that certain things are ok to put aside but then other things cannot be? I personally have not actually even taken the precepts (formally or informally) or refuge. It is something I am strongly considering doing in the near future, but have not yet because of such questions about "Harm" and "intoxicants."
Withholding from mind-clouding substances appears simple— it is impossible to reveal your Buddha-Nature while your mind is muddled with the effects of drugs or alcohol, or even excessive caffeine— but it has deeper meanings as well. What is the definition of a mind-clouding substance? Could money be this substance? What about a postage stamp? If someone is driven to do immoral acts in the desire to obtain more money, you could consider their mind, their judgement, clouded by this substance. If someone collects stamps and begins to spend considerable amounts of time away from their family in pursuit of this hobby, or spends more money than they can afford to acquire more stamps for their collection, you could also consider their mind clouded by their desire to obtain more stamps. Desire is the key factor in addiction, whether it's conscious or unconscious, desire of the mind or desire of the body, which defines what a mind-clouding substance is.
Hey Karasta
You might be looking at the precepts like the Judea/Christian commandments.They are different.
The precepts are guidelines that you undertake to try to keep. In essence, following them mimics enlightenment. It is not, thou shalt not, it is try. This is not moral wiggle room, it's recognizing that we are humans with all the accompanying plethora of weaknesses but we commit ourselves to make the effort towards keeping them.
Actually, I admire that last statement. It's like my one big disagreement with Cathlicism -- confession -- and that would prevent me from being Catholic now. I sometimes attend the local Methodist church, but not become a formal member because I don't agree with one aspect of its confirmation ceremony.
So, good for you that you are seriously thinking along the lines of making or not making a vow because you are serious! Bravo!
So, that's another reason to give up alcoholic beverages. Unlike a lot of other drinks, drinking it doesn't provide a lot of useful stuff for the body. For one thing, your body needs more water to clean the alcohol out of your system.
Something to consider.
Metta!
Sabre
Anyway, total abstinence is not as bad as total indulgence. Total abstinence is a good thing.
I found it a truly spiritual experience; the best; it was such a relief to get that stuff out of me and I experienced a calmness I've never had without the use of alcohol afterwards.
And then the guy who listened to my confession gave me a piece of paper which he had listed all those people and organisations I'd harmed; he wrote the list while I talked; and I had to then make amends to the people and organisations on that list. By making amends I freed myself from the wreckage of my past, but this could only come about through an understanding that was gained through my confession.
It's a simple process, not easy, but there is truth in the saying that honesty sets you free.
If you take a look in the Buddhist practise of Tonglen, there's a lot of similarities in the process to what I've just described.
Sorry to drag it off-topic; but I just wanted to comment on Vinlyn's post.
Most people are not addicted to alcohol. If they gave up, the abstinence wouldn't be controlling them, it would be a passive abstinence. People who are addicted to alcohol may need a more active abstinence, and yes, in these cases, the alcohol still has a hold on them even if they don't drink for a long time, but also in these cases, the active abstinence is necessary.
Thank you for the reply.
You said to me:
"But specifically to your post, there is no precept against stepping out doors into bright sunshine. There is no precept against depression. Or eating chocolate. Or drinking coffee. Or taking prescribed medicine. Or not taking prescribed medicine. Or being deprived of light. Or laughing. Or crying. Or loving. "
Very true. However the 5th precept really warns against "intoxication" and/or "heedlessness". It does not say avoid anything and everything no matter how insignificantly it changes the mind.
That particular post of mine was not in direct defense of drunkenness or intoxication - at all. My comments were in response to others stating (insisting, really) that ONE beer or ONE small glass of wine was "just as bad" as drinking many, or drinking habitually, because after all- "one beer clouds the mind" etc. That's why I brought up the concept that all sorts of things can cloud or change the brain. We can't ignore the LEVELS of change that need to happen before things get "ugly".
Also, my biggest point (and peeve, honestly) was that I have a problem with the negative judgement of many here towards someone who may or may not be following the precepts "to the letter".
No one knows that person's motivations, intent, or if they do or don't have "addiction issues". To presume the worst about them is not right in my mind.
To lecture and make them feel "less a Buddhist" or as if they've "sinned" in some way, doesn't help them learn anything except judgement and rejection.
Many people turn to Buddhism for many reasons. They may not ever achieve the ultimate "Enlightenment" or complete awareness. In the long run, they may not even be striving for that. (I'm not).
They may have no intention of becoming Buddhist monks or nuns, and living the austere lifestyle they live. (I don't). They may simply be seeking a way to live their lives - happily - while cultivating a more harmonious nature, living a more stress-free life, being loving, helpful and compassionate to others, and following the 5 precepts to the best of THEIR ability. Who is anyone else to say this is not enough, and not a valid Buddhist life?
Just a side note: I just read the other day that "Westerners" are the only ones who seem intent on taking things to extreme levels and focusing on "micro-management" so to speak, when it comes to Buddhism and meditation. They are also the most 'judgmental'.
Example: The vast majority of lay Buddhists across Asia, go about their daily lives, working, playing, loving family and friends, caring for animals, drinking spirits occasionally, etc, without ANY time devoted to meditation. They may (or may not) do a quick devotional prayer in the morning upon rising, and again in the evening; but they do not devote spaces of time - especially hours- to sit in meditation. There are even sects of Buddhist MONKS who do very little sitting meditation.... And yet most westerners insist! sitting meditation is the key to enlightenment and the Buddhist ideal.
Who among us here would be so arrogant as to stand up and declare
"Well, those people are NOT true Buddhists!" ?
If any of us here would do that, then I suggest it is YOU who has the problem, not people who have been practicing Buddhism for centuries.
::: gets off the soapbox ::: OK, I'll bow out now.
Peace.
Second statement:
:thumbsup: (although I am only saying "is a good thing", not a necessity.
Catholics believe that the only way to receive forgiveness for mortal sins (and some venial sins) is through confessing to a priest. Therefore, no priestly confession, no forgiveness, no heaven. Which means all other Christians (Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Presbyterians, etc.) are ineligible for heaven. In other words -- my church is better than your church.
But, thanks for your comments. Gave me something to think on.
I'll repeat one more time for anyone who is concerned with practical advice. Pot and coffee don't interfere with my practice, pot can actually help though it can make me a little crazy, tea also in a mild way is beneficial; alcohol destroys my practice even in small amounts. Comparatively speaking I don't really care about the precept issue, I care about what actually happens in practice.
I was taught (and do read) the 5th Precept differently than you. I was taught that it is not to use substances that can cause intoxication or heedlessness, and that the reasoning there was that most people do not see how little of such substances can cause heedlessness. There was a fair amount of alcoholism in my family, and I can remember how -- when seemingly still sober -- the unkind word was said or action taken, when the person would have said they weren't intoxicated. Ah well.
And I do think that my personal stance about drinking -- which I haven't really stated here as I brought up various viewpoints as part of the discussion -- has been misunderstood. I have no problem with responsible drinking; I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 or that no one should be able to drink; if you come to my house for a social activity you will be offered alcohol. My problem is more about how the Precepts are treated, particularly by Western Buddhists. As I see Buddhism, the Precepts are one of the foundations, and yet too often they are pushed aside as having little importance. But of course, it also depends on whether you see Buddhism as a philosophy or as a religion.
And, I certainly agree with what you say about the way "old world" Buddhists live their lives...since that's where I learned Buddhism...in Thailand over nearly 20 long summers and about 2 years of living there full time.
You said: "I certainly agree with what you say about the way "old world" Buddhists live their lives...since that's where I learned Buddhism...in Thailand over nearly 20 long summers and about 2 years of living there full time."
That is very interesting to me.
How do you feel about opening a new discussion thread and sharing your experiences in Thailand and its Buddhist practices; and point out the similarities and differences? (or have you done that already somewhere in this forum?)
Peace.