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.
No intoxicants, but we're allowed to eat?
CosmicGypsy
Veteran
In the Eight Precepts 'Sobriety' is usually promoted, ie do not consume intoxants. However these clearly isn't the message, the message is don't take drugs. For if we were to let go of all foods that contained intoxants and effected the mind, one would need to starve... no?
I was browing a British monastary website and had to laugh, they said guests must follow the eight precepts but in their schedule offered cheese and chocolate as a daily snack. Cheese, one of the most toxic foods known to man, and a cacao based product, known to stimulate and alter mind.
My question is in what way this would different from a glass of red wine? Apart from the obvious fact that a glass of red wine has long term and short term health benefits, unlike cheese and chocolate.
Should it not be promoted that attatchment, dependence or abuse of toxants is the wrong way. As there's a clear conradiction in opposing someone for having the occasional glass of wine alongside a meal, and a Monk eating junk food.
Now you will say that monks live a simple diet, and they do, and that they take what's given and can't afford to be picky. But If I was to give a bottle of wine as an offering, it would be declined, no? While they accept Ice cream and other silly, non beneficial foods.
If we're eating for taste then we're eating for pleasure and happyness, we're attached.
I ask this as I don't drink myself, and therefore have no attatchment, but was considering having the occasional glass with a meal after becoming aware of the health benefits, not least mental.
Non-attatchment has helped me tremendously, especially in regards to diet and eating for nutrition and health, rather than taste or pleasure. But is Buddhism so pedantic as to say looking after your physical at the extent of a non-observable effect on the mind is a bad or 'wrong' way?
I also notice most Buddhist Monks eat only 1 meal a day, and usually not a very big meal. This is hypocrisy. Restricting yourself in such a way effects the mind. You starve your brain cells and effect your mental, your mind. This can be observed just as alcohol can. Drink alot of beer and you'll get very drunk. Literally starve yourself and you'll hallucinate and alter your senses in but a few days.
So if starvation in the way of a single, small meal a day is acceptable, why isn't a small glass of wine every other week. What's the difference? Other than the glass of wine brings health benefits alongside the near unobservable effect on mind.
Apologise for my long first post, sometimes I doubt my ability to articulate myself and over explain my position and views. Look forward to your responses!
I was browing a British monastary website and had to laugh, they said guests must follow the eight precepts but in their schedule offered cheese and chocolate as a daily snack. Cheese, one of the most toxic foods known to man, and a cacao based product, known to stimulate and alter mind.
My question is in what way this would different from a glass of red wine? Apart from the obvious fact that a glass of red wine has long term and short term health benefits, unlike cheese and chocolate.
Should it not be promoted that attatchment, dependence or abuse of toxants is the wrong way. As there's a clear conradiction in opposing someone for having the occasional glass of wine alongside a meal, and a Monk eating junk food.
Now you will say that monks live a simple diet, and they do, and that they take what's given and can't afford to be picky. But If I was to give a bottle of wine as an offering, it would be declined, no? While they accept Ice cream and other silly, non beneficial foods.
If we're eating for taste then we're eating for pleasure and happyness, we're attached.
I ask this as I don't drink myself, and therefore have no attatchment, but was considering having the occasional glass with a meal after becoming aware of the health benefits, not least mental.
Non-attatchment has helped me tremendously, especially in regards to diet and eating for nutrition and health, rather than taste or pleasure. But is Buddhism so pedantic as to say looking after your physical at the extent of a non-observable effect on the mind is a bad or 'wrong' way?
I also notice most Buddhist Monks eat only 1 meal a day, and usually not a very big meal. This is hypocrisy. Restricting yourself in such a way effects the mind. You starve your brain cells and effect your mental, your mind. This can be observed just as alcohol can. Drink alot of beer and you'll get very drunk. Literally starve yourself and you'll hallucinate and alter your senses in but a few days.
So if starvation in the way of a single, small meal a day is acceptable, why isn't a small glass of wine every other week. What's the difference? Other than the glass of wine brings health benefits alongside the near unobservable effect on mind.
Apologise for my long first post, sometimes I doubt my ability to articulate myself and over explain my position and views. Look forward to your responses!
0
Comments
Eat too much pasta and you'll feel lethargic. Drink too much coffee and you'll be jumping around like a mad monkey.
Some people feel that alcohol is totally out. That's fine by them. I feel a glass of vino every now and then is perfectly alright. That's fine by me.
I'm sure you know by now that if you eat too much food you'll feel lethargic. That's one of the reasons why you see many monks (especially Theravadin monks) adhere to the 1 meal a day rule. And the meals are not really small. It's quite a substantial amount from where I come from.
Also, imagine having to go out for alms 3 times a day. It simply takes too much time. There's little time left for meditation, chores, etc.
By the way, where did you get the information that cheese is one of the most toxic foods known to man?
As for the cheese, that's a mistake on my part. It's one of the most toxic foods known to man IF fermented. So real cheese, European cheese. Parmesan, blue cheese, brie, goat cheese etc. Non fermented cheese isn't too good for you, but it's relatively harmless, unless you're lactose intolerant.
When fermented cheese creates large quantities of roquefortine, a toxic alkaloud. I eat both cheese and cacao for the record, but very very rarely. Not because of the effects on mind and mood, but the attatchment. For me, like with a glass of wine, the effects on the mind are unobservable. Though technically you'd have to concede there's effect as it's scientifically proven.
While there are certainly some people who can hold a job and family while chasing the dragon once a month, the general rule of thumb is that intoxicants/drugs etcetera cause problems big time. They are especially a problem for young people whose brains are still developing, and who are more likely to wander down this particular road.
There is no middle way with regard to intoxicants, rather the middle way is skewed towards the extreme 'not-taking' end of the spectrum.
A little cheese and wine maybe fine.
The Precepts are supposed to be a thumbnail guide to the Middle Way, a way of focusing your effort to live a life conductive to Buddhist practice, not a statement of what's an abomination or blasphemous or sinful.
The Precept does not say, "You must not defile the Holy Mind with any substance that might have an effect on it, because that is an abomination to Buddha!" The Precept says, in one translation or another, you vow to avoid intoxicants that cause heedlessness. It's the Middle Way. Avoid extremes including letting your mind turn obeying the Precents into your goal. There's no prize for "going above and beyond" what the wisdom of the Precepts contain. Do that, and you're not on the Middle Way.
Hope this helps.
But there are notable health benefits to drinking the odd glass of red wine with a meal. Primarily it massively reduces chances of alzyhemrs and dementia in old age.
My point isn't really that we should all be running around drinking Russian vodka and shooting up brown. More so that there seems to be a hypocrisy in regards to intoxication and what toxants are. If not a hypocrisy an ignorance to Science, maybe.
I certainly recognise the Precept is not dogmatic and is merely a guideline, an advised path of sorts. I was just curious if the notions I'm putting forward are familiar to Buddhists. I ask as in my learnings I came across a Buddhist Monk who called people who drink alcohol, regardless the amount, "idiots". Struck me as rather ignorant in itself. Considering he was near starving himself and surely effecting his mind with his insufficient diet.
Thankyou for all the replies. I'll get back in touch later and probably post another thread on some questions I have. Only just discovered this place exists
---
Thanks Sukhita. I'll just clarify that part. I'm not saying eating 1 meal a deal will cause you to die of starvation or suffering. But that 1 meal a day is not ideal and will cause light headedness. And that lack of food, taken to the extreme(so proper starvation) would and does cause hallucinations.
The reason I made the comparison is that alcohol in large amounts will cause you to be drunk. But a glass of wine or lager will not. Actual starvation will cause hallucinations and insanity, mild starvation in the way of a restricted diet will not. So both insufficient diets and a small glass of wine have relatively the same mental effects.
Sorry for the confusion, be back later, really this time!
Drink grape juice.
Not Wine.
Or eat whole grapes and get the additional health benefits from the extra fiber.
The training rule of one meal a day is for monks. This does not apply to lay Buddhists, although they may voluntarily practice it on certain occasions, like on retreat.
What you say, viz. "one meal a day is not ideal", will (IMHO) be true of lay Buddhists because many of them will be involved in energy "sapping" activity for most of the day. Monks also engage in physical activity, but much of their time, at least in the Buddha's days, would have been spent meditating. Also note, the Buddha rejected the extreme forms of physical asceticism recommended by other traditions in India. The Buddha (IMHO) provided for both the physical and mental welfare of his disciples.
There are lay Buddhists who are quite comfortable with a glass of wine with their meals because of their own awareness that this will not be a cause for heedlessness or carelessness. But I'm not sure if this will be appropriate for monks.
The precepts are where moral and ethical behavior begins and is where the religious life begins as well. The precepts should be upheld by all Buddhist practitioners. The supposed health benefits of any intoxicant never outway the destructive heedlessness induced that can quickly overtake a person's mind, carefully dismantling his or her religious pursuits.
That someone is negative or bad when alcohol is taken to it's extreme means we shouldn't consume or go near it at all? That fact shouldn't disqualify alcohol outright. Nor should the result of all-out starvation prevent one from fasting or limiting food consumption. There are parallels, and I think they're fair parallels.
If you eat too much cheese it increases chances of bladder cancer and will make you sick for days. Does that reality disqualify one from eating cheese in moderation?
You are right, the symetry isn't exact and in respect to chocolate and alcohol it is somewhat of a false equivealance. But I think there's a valid and rational argument here, generally. Many things taken to an extreme can cause these actions you mention. And on the other hand many things can't and do not. Marijuana will not cause you to do those things you mentioned, but smoking copious amounts of marijuana isn't therefore verified or a good thing to do.
I am rejecting the precept. I'm not trying to change the meanings to suit my lifestyle or my view. I believe it's flawed; At worst scientifically, at best semantically.
---------
This is true, especially for blood flow and cardiovascular benefits. But most studies are inconclusive on grapes vs grape juice vs wine.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-and-nutrition/AN00576
It's also less cost expensive. Usually it takes about 2-3 lbs of grapes to make a wine, you can get those from a market for much less the cost of wine, especially if in season.
It's inconclusive whether without the fermenting process they provide the equivelant benefits in relation to the brain, though.
I can sympathize, I drink. I love to go out and drink, I love clubs and the whole bar scene. I think we have to put a bit of perspective into what we are trying to achieve. I am not trying to end all suffering, I am a student of Buddhism to understand suffering better so that I can deal with it better and bring balance. I fully embrace that there will be suffering in my life.
Now if we were trying to end suffering forever, I think you can easily see how alcohol or drugs would affect this path. Try only having wholesome thoughts when drunk...IMPOSSIBLE! hehe. I know you're only talking about 1 glass a day but it opens up for that "lets have another..."
Also, drinking can lead to some horrific things, but most people who drink dont do all these awful things. Its a minority.
I think maybe my political views and understanding may be getting in the way here. I really don't believe that objects are problematic in themselves, but neutral and their abuse and failures are dependant on the user. I take a similar positions on guns, which sounds insane! Not because I'm looking at Buddhism, but because I'm British and on the far left, haha.
To be honest I see all these arguments and ran them through my own head beforehand, had an epic battle of sorts. Ultimately though I believe everything should be taken on a case by case basis with reasons, effects and intentions looked at, individually. I'm not big on A is bad, B uses A, B is bad type reasoning. For me that's a logical fallacy.
But I absolutely understand those who opt not to pollute their minds, even marginally, with these things. It just humours me somewhat that the conclusions on good and bad seems to be formed on the back of cultural and political issues. Or maybe my cultural and political values are getting in the way of reality.
I'll have to think about it some more. Nice conversating with you brother.
Theres a Zen story that Bodhidharma pulled off his eyelids when he couldn't meditate without sleeping. And that they turned into tea.
I think that it should be well recognized that the 5 precepts are a very important part of Buddhist practice for very good reason. I understand and am completely tolerant of those who wish to reject the precepts, but they do so at the detriment of their personal religious practice.
Perhaps for a more positive way of looking at these precepts you could look over Thich Nhat Hahn's 14 mindfulness trainings
http://www.orderofinterbeing.org/14e.html
The fifth makes a short statement about comsumption of toxins. In some of his other teachings he discusses toxins as also including cetain films, books, video games, websites, and even places like bars, strip clubs, casinos, etc.
You get all the wonderful nutrients & anti oxidants
from the skin & seeds of the grapes.
Dont underestimate the marketing prowess of the wine industry.
A second test would be of the grape hypothesis. It is true that the grape skins contain antioxidants. However I wonder if a glass of grape juice 100% at meals would produce the same health benefit?
Alcohol is not an ordinary commodity. While it carries connotations of pleasure and sociability in the minds of many, harmful consequences of its use are diverse and widespread
I am reminded of the way our school system was set up. There were the school district rules. Then the individual school could make those rules tighter or add completely different rules. The teacher in the classroom could have his or her additional rules. But as principal, I could only suspend a student for breaking certain district rules.
To me, that's sort of the way Buddha set up the Noble Eightfold Path. If you follow those precepts, you'll do well. If you want to make some of the precepts more strict, YOU can do that for yourself. If you want to add YOUR OWN PRECEPTS FOR YOURSELF, you can do that. But to follow Buddha's teachings, all you need to do is follow the Noble Eightfold Path and you can be successful. If you stray from his path, you must be willing to accept the karmic results...for all I know they could be better results, or worse results, or just different results.
On this site (and others like it) we often debate how to interpret the Dhamma. And some of us disagree with aspects of it. As we walk along the path, some of us intentionally take a side path here and there. But hopefully we don't try to reinvent the Dhamma. It seems like you want to literally rewrite the Dhamma to suit your personal beliefs. Instead, I recommend that you stick with the Dhamma and take your own little side paths and simply accept the karmic results...if there are any. If you have your own rule not to eat cheese, somehow I doubt that is going to change you or the world.
Although it's probably come across as so, I'm not for a second trying to suggest drugs are a good thing, or should be promoted. In the same sense I don't think they're inherently bad either. They just 'are'.
Really helpful responses and look forward to chopping it up with you all on other issues.
Generally speaking, cheese is pretty safe. The greatest danger from cheese seems to be the steric acid that raises cholesterol levels, but most people who consume too much steric acid get most of it from other sources. Cheese contains a number of different helpful substances. In moderate amounts it is good for you.
Other common preservatives include 220 sodium dioxide, 220 sodium bisulphite, and 223 sodium meta- bisulphite. As with sulphur dioxide, these sulphites are regulated as to the amount that can be added to wine.
I think if we truly consider every implication to the nth degree, we would be taking things to an unnecessary and unhealthy extreme. Rather like the Buddha did when he realised he was starving himself to death for absolutely no good reason whatsoever - except to discover what a bone-headed thing it is to do, to take anything to a ridiculous extreme....