Buddhism and Alcohol
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Hello, esteemed Sangha. I'm a new member on this site. Technically, I am not a "new Buddhist," since I have been practicing on and off for a couple of decades, though in an undisciplined manner. Yet in another sense, I am new since I have resolved to take it more seriously now that I am "getting on" in age. 
I look forward to participating in and learning from many stimulating discussions on this website.
At any rate, I have a question that I hope hasn't been covered before. How do the various Buddhists here feel about alcohol consumption? Do you feel it is totally off limits for Buddhists? Okay once in a while? Okay if consumed mindfully? Or perhaps beer is okay but not hard liquor? I'm particularly interested in learning why you feel the way you do.
I look forward to reading your replies.
Comments
What do you mean by that? Alcohol is an intoxicant, and the root of intoxicant is "toxic" a.k.a poison. If you take it mindfully you are deliberately poisoning yourself. Does this seem like a skilful act to you?
Here, I agree with Poptart, both in terms of physical health and moral health.
I am a great believer in the 5 Precepts, and that is one of them (I do believe that different people have different interpretations of some of the 5 Precepts, but this one seems to me to have little wiggle room).
On the other hand, each person must make his own decision. If you come to my home, you will find beer, wine, and rum. I have not consumed any alcoholic beverage in 40 years, but I do not feel I have the right to make the decision for others.
Thanks for your reply, and nice to meet you, @poptart . If you put it that way, no. I guess I am actually wondering what the gist of the Fifth Precept is. Is it to avoid poison (all around us, actually) or to avoid loss of mindfulness?
The Fifth precept actually says
' I undertake the rule of training to refrain from that which causes heedlessness '.
No mention of alcohol per se...it could equally apply to watching some TV programmes.
Or for some, drinking too much coffee. Or gambling..
So the question becomes vis a vis alcohol, can you get drunk and keep the precept ? ..clearly not.
Can you have a glass of wine or beer and keep the precept ?..that depends on the individual.
Some people are affected by only one glass..some people cannot stick to only one glass.
Personally I will have a glass of chilled Rose later this evening.
It will not make me heedless...But its an individual decision that needs to be made honestly.
Hi...and welcome! Whatever you've heard about me...is probably true, hahaha.
The drinks? It's up to you what you decide to put in your body. I'm a 1-2 drink max. person.
I Can't stand the taste of beer. Only fruity, water-downed mixers for me. ..
.. or creamy ones. White Russian or a Pumpkin Spice liquor on ice.
@Citta, here's where I have a problem with your definition -- but of course, as I said previously, each person must make his own decisions.
There has been a fair amount of alcoholism -- to one degree or another -- in my family. I was always hearing statements like, "Oh I'm alright, I can drive." Or, "I know how to hold my liquor." Or, doesn't really affect me until I've had more than 3 mixed drinks." All stated by people that were already drunk.
I remember my father coming home one night while on leave from the military...all covered with snow where he had fallen in snow banks while walking home. Then fell in the bathroom where he passed out for an hour. And when he finally came out of said, "Oh, I only had a couple."
Oh, and to me, the Precept is about substances than have the potential to cause heedlessness. I hate to think how many people out there have done "bad" things, who had no intention of becoming heedless.
But I have no such problem @vinlyn. I can have a glass of wine..feel no effect, certainly not heedlessness, and leave it at that.
On the other hand I have not smoked ( anything ) for 30 years..because if I do its 40 a day or nothing.
Its knowing yourself and being honest with yourself..
Having taken the 5 precepts intoxicants are of limits. I would suggest everyone takes them they provide a firm basis of morale discipline.
This is the OP. It makes no mention of the precepts, not the 5 or 8 or 10.
Some Vajrayana schools, and I believe many Zen schools, make no formal use of the precepts as such at all.
We are actually in similar territory to the meat eating debate.
There is no single Buddhist response. We need to find what works for us.
I'm not very advanced on the buddhist path, so perhaps you should take my words with a grain of salt, but here it goes:
I am an occasional drinker. My brother, on the other hand, is an alcoholic.
I've never had problems with alcohol. However, I am of very small stature, so I become inebriated easily. This isn't a problem for me, though. I only drink when I know that I am in a safe place and don't have to drive later. I've never drank to the point of blacking out or doing something I regretted. I've certainly never driven drunk.
No, alcohol isn't good for me, but it's not killing me, either. It's my choice to occasionally do something that is not great for my health in order to have some fun. So I say, if you can drink in a responsible, non-addictive way, have at it.
My brother, on the other hand, can't drink responsibly. In his case, alcohol is extremely toxic and addictive. He also can't make appropriate decisions while he's on it. There have been times when I've had to hide his keys because he wanted to drive.
Something being bad for you doesn't immediately mean that you can never do it.
It's a bit like watching mindless television. If you're doing it all day and skipping out on important tasks because of it, that is a serious problem. However, if you only indulge for an hour or two once in a while, it's not harming you that much.
As with most things, there is a gradient of "bad." Alcohol falls in various places on that gradient depending on the person. My infrequent consumption of it has never affected my life negatively. It's a personal choice.
Isn't a glass of wine in the evening supposed to be good for health? And there might be people drinking for general health. In that case, can we still say it is breaking the precepts?
Water can poison us if we drink enough of it.
Water is not an intoxicant, as you very well know.
You're wrong I'm afraid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
So as you see, we have varying degrees of tolerance for alcoholic consumption - at least within limits. It seems to be one of those personal choices on where a Buddhist draws the line. And we are as capable as any group in coming up with justifications for our behavior. I know of one highly revered Roshi who was an open alcoholic (and perhaps had other precept-breaking behaviors) yet his many followers continued to treat him as enlightened and sit at his feet. He died from the effects of his excess because nobody had the courage to stage an intervention in his case.
For myself, I drink an occasional beer. I also swat flies and mosquitos with abandon, in spite of the precepts against killing. But, I do so with full knowledge that I am not living up to the standards of many Buddhists and don't make excuses for my behavior. If strictly obeying the precepts is what it takes to be a Buddha, then I admit I'm too lazy and undisciplined to reach that level. I'm not a bad Buddhist, just not a perfect one.
Although I don't agree with you, I would remind you of what I said earlier: "I do believe that different people have different interpretations of some of the 5 Precepts... [and} ...each person must make his own decision."
So if someone was under stress, is it okay for them to get violent and abusive...since it would help them relieve stress?
I know that's extreme, but it seems to me that's the same type of thinking.
I have a weight problem. I can't tell you all the excuses I sometimes make to myself just to eat one more _____.
So, let's say you are about to have open heart surgery, and your surgeon says, "I've got to have one belt just to stiffen my reserves. Don't worry one drink has no affect on me."
...you'll buy that?
@vinlyn those arguments seem to be straw men to me. Cinorjer is not a surgeon. He might just be relaxing to music with his wife or something.
The under stress would also be a straw man. It is possible to do skillful ways of relieving stress such as a hot bath or back message. Killing people to relieve stress has no relationship to having a message, bath, or a drink.
Unrelated to my above post my Lama will tell her students who have existing drinking problems who got them under control not to put them in a situation where they will relapse to drinking. But if someone asks her if they can have a drink with dinner she will ask if the drink makes them do things they regret. I'm talking about regrets from a dharmic stance. I would posit that some people have less of a problem losing mindfulness granted they had a glass of wine with dinner than many other teetotalers who follow the precept rigidly with an egoic viewpoint.
Instead of resorting to your straw man straw man, stop and think about the point I am making. People will say one drink doesn't have an effect, and yet there are dozens of things people will not allow to be done to them if a person has had even one drink.
Watching the World Cup, on the sofa, not being one of them.
Cheers...
Yes that is a strawman. I don't want Cinorjer to operate on me after a drink, but it is perfectly fine in 99/100 settings. I guess you are saying that you proved that consciousness is affected by even one drink? Is that right? But in the setting of relaxing with a nice dinner there is no harm done. For surgery harm is done, but for relaxing watching a movie no harm is done. That is why I find it non-comparable. The effect of one beer is in a setting rather than an absolute stand on saying it affects the mind. In most settings a beer is just fine. I would say meditating for 30 minutes after a beer or three would be better than never drinking but not meditating.
Does the pali canon not specifically refer to fermented / distilled drinks? Albeit followed by 'that cause heedlessness / pamadacondition'.
'Surā-meraya-majja-pamādaṭṭhānā' veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
Sura: brewed from rice or flour
Meraya: distilled alcohol from sugar or fruit and sometimes flavoured
Majja: Made from honey
Is there a separate word for alcohol?
Alcohol is an intoxicant, and the root of intoxicant is "toxic" a.k.a poison. If you take it mindfully you are deliberately poisoning yourself.
It's not all doom and gloom. There are suggestions also of health benefits apparently.
Namaste,
I do not drink alcohol at all. Not only because of the precepts but also because of my health. I have not smoked for almost 10 years. My diet has been pretty crappy in the past and I have improved that too.
Whether or not you drink in the end is your decision. But the precepts are the precepts. You can translate them all you want. You can do that with traffic rules too. Whether you can get away with that in court is another matter entirely
...
Metta,
Raven
_ /\ _
There are a variety of opinions regarding the Buddha's stance on alcohol, and whether being a Buddhist means they can no longer drink. The short answer is, it's definitely better not to. The fifth precept clearly discourages the use of drugs and alcohol for the sole purpose of intoxication because it leads to carelessness.
That said, the way I approach the five precepts is more like training rules that are voluntarily undertaken for the sake of our welfare and happiness rather than edicts or commands dictated by a higher power and/or authority that must be followed, although they should be followed. The precepts are undertaken to protect ourselves, as well as others, from the results of unwholesome actions. They're seen as gifts "that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests" (AN 8.39).
As for whether having a glass of wine with dinner or something like that violates the fifth precept, it depends on who you ask. Some say yes and some say no, although I think the majority of Buddhists would recommend complete abstention. Dhammanando Bhikkhu, for example, states that:
The main reasoning behind this interpretation — which is based on Abhidhammic teachings — is that "every breach of the fifth precept arises from a greed-rooted citta," so it's an inherently unskillful action because it's rooted in greed (although I think any kind of sensual indulgence is generally rooted in greed, so even eating our favourite food could be considered unskillful from this point of view).
Khemasanto Bhikkhu, on the other hand, has said that having a glass of wine with dinner (for a lay-followers at least) doesn't violate the fifth precept as long as one stops before they can "feel [the effects of] the alcohol." The main reasoning behind this interpretation, I suppose, is the intent of the precept itself — i.e., to help protect one from breaking the other four precepts, not to insinuate that drinking alcohol in and of itself is unwholesome — which I think is supported by this passage from Sn 2.14:
This point is echoed by the Ven. Huifeng (Pannasikhara), who notes:
Whether this is what the Buddha himself meant when he formulated the fifth precept, I can't say for sure; I'm just passing along what I've heard/read. Certainly, though, our adherence to the precepts will improve in the course of our practice, and skillful actions (done out of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusions) are morally superior (i.e., more beneficial, wholesome, and conducive to pleasure and happiness) than unskillful ones; but we're not expected to be perfect in our morality right away.
As the Buddha explains in AN 9.7, only one "whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis [i.e., an arahant], cannot possibly transgress these five principles." At that point, they're no longer precepts, but a natural part of our being.
As for myself, I still have a glass of beer or wine once in a while myself, and I don't lose any sleep over it. Suffice it to say that I tend to follow the spirit rather than the letter when it comes to doctrine. One drink doesn't make me heedless, and I don't beat myself up if I decide to have a pint with my mates or my girlfriend. I just note that I gave into this particular sense-pleasure and carry on with my practice. No excuses, but no guilt, either.
Of course, many people will take issue with this, suggesting that to openly break a precept you've undertaken amounts to hypocrisy or even spiritual laziness, and I think there's some truth to that. But looking at it another way, I think taking the precepts knowing that I'm probably going to break one on occasion is better than not taking them at all. I'm a work in progress.
I may not be a very good 'Buddhist' in the eyes of some because I occasional have a glass of wine or a pint of beer, but hey, at least I'm not lying about it. After all, Buddhism isn't called a gradual path for nothing. Some of us are just harder to train than others.
Sorry, I won't respond to debates about debating.
A huge portion of this forum is debates. Of which, you often participate in many. It is like you are saying logic is not allowed. 'Straw man' deals with logic. Aside from that for me harm is the basis of morality. If nobody is harmed then no problem. A glass of alcohol certainly harms open heart surgery. But if I have a drink while bowling it is meaningless sport and thus there is no harm. And, of course, you don't have to respond to any particular post or topic or person on the forum.
I lead a very healthy lifestyle. I do yoga. I meditate. I go for long strolls. I have a healthy diet. I try to practise what I preach as far as the limitations of my intellect will allow.
And I drink the occasional glass of wine or champagne now and then with friends or over a good dinner. I know my limit and I never go past it.
Think Middle Way, think moderation. I am not a surgeon and I don't drive.
I think there is a difference in making decisions (any decision, but in this case the decision to have a drink) with mindfulness and true honesty and denial. There have been times in my life I drank too much and insisted I was fine. I knew I wasn't, though. I was just trying to convince others. There is a vast difference, with myself, between that and having 4 ounces of wine with dinner. Over the years, I have learned my limits and I know pretty much exactly when something starts to impact me. So I stop before that point. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are not subtle changes going on in my mind or body, because there always are any time our body interacts with a substance (including the healthiest foods on the planet). It has been quite a long time since I drank to the point of even feeling it, much less to the point of heedlessness.
Everyone just has to know themselves, and their understanding of the teachings they are following and what it means to them if they have taken precepts that they are breaking. For example, the precepts I took with my teacher make no mention of alcohol or intoxicants at all. The precepts I took were to not take refuge in worldly attainments, to not harm sentient beings, to not associate with negative individuals, and to show respects for the 3 Jewels. For some, alcohol could indeed be a worldly attainment, I'm sure. In that case, I have more of a problem attaining books and games than I do alcohol. My teacher doesn't have a problem with his students having the occasional drink, as long as we do it, and everything else we do, with mindfulness, and connectedness to ourselves and our practice.
Thanks a lot everyone for your insights, it has got me thinking. And nice meeting everyone!
The latest study disprove that red wine is good for health.
http://time.com/97878/red-wine-healthy-study/
Nice meeting you too!
From what I can gather, the direct translation of the 5th precept is to "abstain from the intoxication caused by beer and cider"
Abstain from the intoxication. So that's what I'm trying to do.
I didn't see any mention of drugs in the original text but I'm sure it's common sense,
...you'll buy that?
Heh. I'd question his judgment in admitting it to his patient. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I did say there should be limits in what even Buddhists who take an occasional drink consider to be safe and harmless. If the point you're getting at is that alcohol helps damage a lot of lives and it's better to stay away completely from such a dangerous thing, I concede your point. A good buzz once in a while might be harmless, but it's certainly not the same thing as a clear mind.
No, if we break the precepts, we should be honest enough to know we're doing so in spite of a big warning sign that says, "Proceed at your own risk." I will point out, though, that some of the worst, most oppressive, evil behavior comes from people and cultures that have outlawed alcohol entirely. That's not to excuse the damage that drinking does. Just saying that you can't blame alcohol for the mess people seem determined to get themselves into. They're gonna do that one way or another.
Here's what you do. Drink as as you see fit - beer, wine, hard liquor. Let your practice be the determining factor to how much, if any you take in. To be truly beneficial to sentient beings, your keeping of the precepts must arise from practice.
We haz plan. Agreed. Better not to. Do we always do what is better? It is better if we do. Can we?
Time for my meditation addiction . . . must not resist the cushion . . . such a lush cushion . . . :om: .
@Cinorjer, the point I'm making is this: When people say that one drink (for example) doesn't affect them, it's really not true. It may not affect them significantly, but it does affect them. The word they wouldn't have chosen without alcohol. The volume of their speech. The knocking of their cigarette off the ashtray. Their handwriting being just a tad messier than usual.
If a drink now and then is no problem, why did they fire the school guidance counselor who had a bottle of whiskey in his desk? He was never drunk. Just a belt now and then.
Why don't we want a jet pilot to have even one drink before take off?
Why don't we want our surgeon to have just one drink before he cuts us open?
Now, I've said before, I don't have a problem -- in general -- if people drink a bit. I have alcohol in my home for guests. If you and I went out to dinner and you had a couple of drinks, I don't care.
But I will never agree that one drink has no effect. It does. And there is that ever changing line when the potential for heedlessness becomes heedlessness to one degree or another. And the drinker rarely realizes he has crossed that line.
Now this concept of the Precepts being only training rules. Training for what? The Buddhist Olympics? The Precept not to kill is training you for not killing. The Precept against unwise speech is training you to speak wisely. The Precept against substances that can cause heedlessness is training you to not take alcohol and drugs to not be heedless. In his very well written piece above, Jason said, "training rules that are voluntarily undertaken for the sake of our welfare and happiness". I would state it differently: training rules that are voluntarily undertaken for the sake of our welfare and happiness and the welfare and happiness of others, with an emphasis on the latter. We seem to get caught up in "our" (well, not my) disdain for the Ten Commandments because they were supposedly handed down by God, and so if you don't believe in God, ignore the Commandments. Really? At the same time we follow Buddhism because of its wisdom. So let's say that God didn't hand down the Ten Commandments, or that there is no God. So what? Is not the concept that you should not go out and kill your fellow man a wise principle? Is not the concept that you should not commit adultery a wise principle? I don't care if God wrote it, or Buddha wrote it, or Englebert Whatshisdink wrote it. If it's wise, it's wise. To those who say they don't believe in the Ten Commandments, fine, so I guess they won't mind a bit if I shoot them in the head with a 22. It's the principle based on wisdom that's important, not who said it or commanded it. It's part of a social contract that most societies have had for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, albeit with variations and to varying degrees. I hate to think what this world would have been like or would be like without the Ten Commandments, and the Five Precepts, or Hammurabi's Code, etc. These social contracts have evolved over time, and are probably the only reason man hasn't brought about his own extinction.
I like Jason's discussion of following the spirit of the Precepts, rather than the letter of the Precepts. I think that's very honest. And I'm not perfect on the 5 principal Precepts. And I'm not criticizing others who feel differently than I...as I have repeatedly stated in this thread. Almost all of my friends drink to some extent. And that's fine. But we are having an academic discussion. And there's really only one type of person I will criticize on this topic -- the person who expends a great deal of time and energy building rationalizations to allow himself to drink in spite of the Precept (or for that many any of the principal Precepts). My father used to drink a quart a Black Velvet a day...at home...and then he'd go out. Fortunately, my father was a good drunk...he only became more mellow when he drank, and he was already pretty mellow. And one night I guess he felt a need to explain his drinking to me. He said, "I don't have to drink. I can stop anytime I want. When I get reassigned to a new base [he was in the military], I abstain completely for at least 3 months until I get reestablished. Then I ease back into it. I drink for just one reason -- I like to drink." I admired the honesty. (And, BTW, he eventually quit drinking cold turkey, and went from 4-5 packs of cigarettes a day to 0, also cold turkey).
Heaven knows (Buddhist heaven, of course) that I have been criticized time and again on this forum for cherry picking. But I admit I cherry pick based on what I feel is wise. But the funny thing is that those who don't follow the Precepts don't feel they are cherry picking. It doesn't bother me that they cherry pick. It bothers me that they don't see that they cherry pick. It bothers me that they appear to have no conceptual basis for their cherry picking.
Fire at will!
@vinlyn I feel I am following precepts as my teacher has explained them. So I don't believe I am rationalizing anything, or at least it is not my novel rationalizing as I found the viewpoint from teachings in my sangha. I like how you said they were the spirit of the law, as Jason said, rather than the letter. For me the spirit is ahimsa or non-harming.
Kia Ora@zenguitar,
How do the various Buddhists here feel about alcohol consumption?
Everything in moderation "The middle way" . :coffee: ..
Metta Shoshin
I would state it differently: training rules that are voluntarily undertaken for the sake of our welfare and happiness and the welfare and happiness of others, with an emphasis on the latter.
Yes, I completely agree that they're both important, and that was definitely implied in what I was trying to say when I said, "The precepts are undertaken to protect ourselves, as well as others, from the results of unwholesome actions."
Good point. For me, the issue with 'commandments' is the attitude of some who conceive one breach as a 'game over, you lose' kind of spiritual deal-breaker; not with the commandments themselves.
As for the training rule thing, I can't speak for anyone else, but I still have a long way to go before I'm completely incapable of transgressing any of the precepts, which is why I just find it more useful to view the precepts as training rules, guidelines, or whatever, I do my best to adhere to and follow while on the gradual path towards nibbana and moral perfection than commandments inviolably set in stone.
It's certainly better not to break them, as with the Ten Commandments. But if I happen to break one, instead of condemning myself and inflicting additional suffering on top of that already conditioned by my unskillful action, I simply have to acknowledge the breach and carry on with my practice, striving (sometimes again, and again, and again) not to make the same mistakes in the future.
>
Everyone's different. Over the years, I've bounced back and forth in the way I observe the precepts, as well as how I approach them in general. Sometimes I'll try to observe all five, other times I'll focus on one or two depending on what I feel I need to really work on the most.
One of the ones I worked on first was the precept to not harm any living being. I progressively got better at not automatically swatting flies and squashing spiders, eventually adopting vegetarianism in part because of practicing harmlessness. Lately, I've been trying to work on the precept to refrain from telling falsehoods, finding that I have a habit of things like telling 'little white lies' or exaggerating things to make them sound more interesting.
I've worked on the fifth off and on as well, often going long periods without drinking anything at all. But I've found it difficult to do this consistently in the last ten years due to a number of reasons, e.g., I like drinking; most of my friends and family drink socially; I enjoy the taste of certain beers and appreciate the art of brewing; I find it easier to not be as shy or withdrawn in social situations; I don't think drinking alcohol is unwholesome in and of itself; etc.
That said, drinking isn't necessarily wholesome either; and there are times and places when one shouldn't (before driving or heart surgery, for example). I'm confident that I'll eventually reach a place in my life and practice where I'll no longer drink; but I'm just not there yet.
Since it is a rule it's rather important, but the rules are not commandments. Meaning you won't go to hell if you have a sip. Overall try to cultivate a lifestyle that does not involve drinking. Shouldn't be too difficult because there is no ideal lifestyle out there that requires anyone to drink ocassionally, unless of course its your profession, like a wine taster etc.
Probably my own contribution to the debate is skewed by the fact that I belong to a tradition where the drinking of small amounts of alcohol in actually mandatory...so that contribution is probably of no value.
We don't take the usual Precepts either...so scrub through my posts on the subject.
A characteristic of any substance dependancy is denial. We defend our habits rather than consider an alternative. Our culture is so steeped in alcohol use it isn't surprising so many can't or won't view it as a problem, even claiming it is a benefit.
The fact is alcohol interferes with clarity, which we need to cultivate in order to achieve a clear mind. If you need a drink to relax you should be examining why you are not relaxed already.
I should have said that I belong to a Buddhist tradition, one of several btw.. that practice Higher Yoga Tantras , in which the drinking of small amounts of alcohol is mandatory.
I think this is one area where there is an unconscious assumption of a Theravadin norm.
For those who follow one of the HYT schools the choice is restricted to what kind of alcohol..
So a nun of my aquaintance who does not like the taste of most alcoholic drinks uses Baileys Irish Cream when leading the Tsok Puja..
It's like the caffeine debate. Some studies say it's bad for us and some say it's good. Just choose whichever one suits your argument.
From my experience people who drink alcohol seem happier than those who don't. Based on a small sample size mind you!
I think one should realise why you personally drink or abuse alcohol. Is it for pleasure or is it because you are trying to get rid of yourself? The results are not the same. Right intention and motivation can be immensely positive in this instance, as many here will attest.
What it boils down to, IMHO, is that you live your life according to how your actions affect the world. If your actions are for the benefit of you others, and that means drinking a beer or glass of wine in a social gathering and all your guests are happy, don't let the thought of drinking alcohol affect you. However, drinking secretly or always getting hammered in a social gathering resulting in your humiliation or a detriment to your friends and family, well it's time to realise that alcohol is affecting you adversely - and it's time to renounce it, and abstain. Who's in control when you are letting alcohol control you?
AN 8.40 PTS: A iv 247
Vipaka Sutta: Results
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997
"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.
"Stealing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from stealing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.
"Illicit sexual behavior — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from illicit sexual behavior is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry & revenge.
"Telling falsehoods — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from telling falsehoods is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused.
"Divisive tale-bearing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from divisive tale-bearing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of one's friendships.
"Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from harsh speech is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.
"Frivolous chattering — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from frivolous chattering is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart.
"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."
Oh well..hell here I come...I might as well have two drinks then.
Again the assumption that Buddhism = the Vinaya.
Not my words...Buddha's