I don’t hate them. I really do take onboard the practice of Metta and will work with this practice for the rest of my life. I include Donald Trump in my metta practice, for gosh sakes! I won’t say to which of the four focuses of metta bhavana he belongs.
I’m just being honest. I don’t want to be infected by one of these creatures (they set up shop in closets and under furniture, and bite at the ankles!) and I don’t want them infecting anyone visiting my small house. It’s a bit of an ethical trade-off for me.
Part of my riff here is tongue in cheek. Again, It’s not about hatred. I’m just being realistic about the application of the precepts, while bearing in mind the devotion and saddha that I have in them as a necessary part of the Path.
I have to say I’ve been around a long time, sampled a few of the “delights” the world offers (though missed out on magic mushrooms) and, now, as in Sinatra’s immortal lyrics…find it all so amusing.
You have not discussed “pamaada-.t.thaana” (causes for negligence). This term could refer to other substances, like solid drugs, that cause loss of awareness, or loss of a sharply focussed mind.
OK, so let’s discuss this term pamāda-ṭṭhānā is the ‘condition’ or ‘state’ of heedlessness. Are we all agreed on that?
So what is 'surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā '? It appears to be a compound. The first part, surā-meraya-majja [there’s something pretty dodgy about the copy and paste of diacritics in this system by the way - they’re coming out all wrong - as well as the discrepency between their appearance in the place we enter them here on the left and their appearance on the right - I am using Firefox on a Mac] is a compound of 3 words all refering to types of alcohol, which we can safely assume to thus refer, as a compound, to ‘all alcoholic drinks’ or ‘alcoholic drinks’ in general. So this whole section is a compound of two compounds, which seems to mean: the state of heedlessness caused by alcoholic drinks.
So the whole precept, surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi, translates as: 'I undertake the training rule to abstain from the state of heedlessness caused by alcoholic drinks.’
Note that according to this interpretation, it is not forbidding alcohol, but heedless drunkenness. I have discussed this interpretation with some Pāli scholars and although this is radically different from the commonly accepted interpretaion of this rule, this interpretation may actually be more gramatically correct and thus quite possibly the correct meaning of the original. @sujato I would be most interested in your thoughts on this.
I agree with it.
The precepts are not law or commandments. You can’t argue about precepts as if you are in a court of law. Law is an ass. If I am a lawyer I can argue to paint a picture of a true criminal as an innocent. The precepts are guidelines for wise to take appropriate action.
Sorry, that’s not correct, I’m afraid. Ṭhāna has many meanings, and the correct nuance must be derived from context. Since the list is of things such as alcoholic drinks, which cause negligence, and that “cause” is a common meaning of ṭhāna, the most likely explanation is that it means “cause of negligence”.
The commentary confirms this, saying: Pamādaṭṭhānanti pamādakāraṇaṃ, i.e. “basis of negligence means cause of negligence”.
In fact, until your post I was not aware that anyone thought it meant anything else.
That this interpretation is correct is confirmed by DN 1, where we have jūtappamādaṭṭhānā in the sense of “frivolous games that cause negligence”.
Earlier someone asked in what sense we could apply this by analogy. Well, it is a general principle in Buddhist ethics that rules may be extended by analogy to cover similar cases; this is only sensible.
Note that the commentaries consistently state that intention is crucial (eg Pamādaṭṭhānanti yāya cetanāya taṃ pivati ajjhoharati, sā cetanā madappamādahetuto pamādaṭṭhānanti vuccati), in other words, it is alcohol drunk in order to cause intoxication. That would, I think, cover recreational, but not medicinal, uses.
Note too that the monks and nuns are specifically forbidden from taken any medicine that has even a smell of alcohol; since the Sangha is normally held to a stricter standard than the lay community in such matters, the existence of this rule implies that medicines with alcohol are allowable under the five precepts.
The question is, what makes it alcohol similar to other drugs? Keeping to a conservative argument for now, the traditions argue that the key problem with alcohol consumption is that it makes people break all the other precepts. This is what pamādaṭṭhāna is taken to mean in the commentaries (Evaṃ tāvettha pāṇātipātappabhutīhi viññātabbo vinicchayo).
Now, in the case of alcohol, this is obviously true. Is it necessarily true for other drugs?
Let’s consider pot. Does it make you get involved in violence? No; stoners don’t get into fights. Theft? Maybe, I guess, although I can’t say I know any major instances. Serious addicts might steal to support their habit, but I don’t think potheads do that. Sexual misconduct? Well, maybe, I guess. But is pot a regular part of seduction in the way that alcohol is? I don’t think so; I suspect alcohol lowers inhibitions in ways that pot does not. Pot often makes people withdrawn, even paranoid, so not really conducive to seduction. Lying? Again, maybe, I guess, to cover it up. But a more likely problem is to overshare boring truth.
This is something that some empirical studies would shed light on, but so far as I can see, while you could never say that pot leads to clarity and wisdom in decision making, I also can’t really see that it results in major and harmful breaking of precepts in the way that alcohol does. More likely, the negative effects are simply laziness, lack of focus, and so on.
So it would be possible, I think, relying on the traditional interpretation of pamādaṭṭhāna, to argue that pot does not fit into this category. Let me be clear, I am not saying that this is the case, merely outlining one possible argument.
Obviously different drugs have different effects, and each would have to be considered on its merits. But in any case, given this uncertainty, and given that the measurable harm to society caused by alcohol far outweighs that of other drugs, it is probably justifiable to keep the focus of this precept on alcohol.
Hi Bhante
I interpret this in a different way.
I ask people in my meditation group not only to observe the five precepts but practice the opposite.
That is:
a)Killing vs loving kindness
b)Stealing Vs generosity
c)Inappropriate sex Vs refrain
d)Lying Vs telling the truth
e)Alcohol vs practicing mindfulness
So crux of the matter here is the mindfulness, not breaking the other precepts.
Sure, you’re asking them to do more than what the precept requires, which is exactly right. But the precept itself is more limited. Not killing just means not killing. And I think, or at least the tradition thinks, that pamādaṭṭhāna means not getting intoxicated with alcohol because it makes you break the other precepts. It doesn’t mean that’s the only reason not to drink, just that it is a basic reason.
I agree that it is possible to interpret the long compound in this way. But it is not the only way to resolve the compound.
I have consulted several Paali commentaries, (which is somewhat out of limits for EBT studies).
----- Paramatthajotikaa (Ee 26,17-27,1) on Khuddakapaa.tha, which contains the ten precepts undertaken by novices (_saama.nera-sikkhaapada).
This commentary has even been translated into English (by Bhikkhu Nyaa.namo.li, I think), and been printed by the Paali Text Society, but the translation is unfortunately not in my library.
This commentary suppports your interpretation, but “majja” is not seen as a third kind of alcoholic drink, but as a quality of sura and meraya.
The compound is divided into
“suraa” - five kinds of suraa, made of pi.t.tha, of puuva, of odana, and ki.n.na-pakhittaa, and sambhaara-sa.myuttaa
"merayam - fivefold as aasava (liquid) of flowers, of fruits, of guu.la (molasses), of honey, and sambhaara-sa.myutto;
“majjan” - whatever other majja (intoxicant) [there is] for the purpose of becoming intoxicated (madaniiya.t.thena), through drinking [of which] [a person] is intoxicated (matta), negligent (pamatto), that is called intoxicant (majja);
“pamaada-.t.thaanan” - by wharever volition (cetanaa), [a person] drinks it, consumes it (ajjhoharati), that volition is called pamaada-.t.thana (cause for negligence), by reason of intoxication, and negligence (mada-pamaada-hetuto). yato ajjhohara.naadhippaayena kaaya-dvaara-ppavattaa suraa-meraya-majjaana.m ajjhohara.na-cetanaa suraa-meraya-majja-pamaada.t.thaanan ti veditabbaa.
It is not a very good authority, of course, because Khp is the latest text in the Tipi.taka and the commentary, also is later than Buddhaghosa.
The Paatimokkha rules (for both monks ad nuns) also contain a precept against the drinking of alkohol. It is worded in a slightly different way, but being in a canonical Vinaya text, there are many commentaries on this rule. The earliest commentary is in the Vinayapi.taka itself.
The text of the rule is brief “suraa-meraya-paane paacittiyan ti”
… To my surprise I found that the canonical commentary on this rule (at Vin IV Ee page 110,14-18) has great similarity with the much later commentary on the ten precepts in Khp.
"_suraa naama pi.t.thasuraa puuvasuraa odanasuraa ki.n.na-pakkhittaa sambhaarasa.myuttaa. _ merayo naama pupphaasavo phalaasavo madhvaasavo gu.laasavosambhaarasa.myutto. “piveyyaa” ti antamaso kusaggena pi pivati, aapatti paacittiyassa.
In the discussion following this exegesis, it is said that the rule is broken even if the monastic drinks an alcoholic beverage thinking, that it is non-alkoholic. The opposite case, if he drinks a non-alkoholic beverage thinking it is alkohol it is still a wrong-doing (dukka.ta).
I .B. Horner, the first translator of the Vinayapi.taka has several foot notes on the Paali words used here. (Vin translation Vol. II 385), and gives reference to DN III 62-63 and several commentaries on Sutta texts.
DN III 62-63 is in the Cakkavatti-siihanaada sutta. The young emperor of the universe follows the freshly arisen wheel of authority (cakka-ratana) around the country side followed by his fourfold army. Everywhere people submit to him and request his advice. So he teaches them these six precepts: "paa.no na hantabbo.
adinna.m n’aadaatabba.m.
kaamesu micchaa na caritabba.m.
musaa na bhaasitabbaa. majja.m na paatabba.m.
yathaa-bhuttany ca bhunyjathaa ti.
This happens in all the four directions of the world.
Translation of the precepts by M. Walshe, page 397f.:
"Do not take life. do not take what is not given. Do not commit sexual misconduct. Do not tell lies. Do not drink strong drink. Be moderate in eating."
Concerning the last rule we have fn. 472 “eat according to eating”. The exact meaning is doubtful. fn792. warder has “rule (collect taxes) in moderation.”---- To “eat” a country (by levying taxes), was the privilege of the ruler.
In the detailed descrption of morality (siila) in the first chapter of DN, restraint from drinking alkohol is NOT mentioned. See DN I § 8-27,Ee page 6,1-12,18.
This list is found in several Suttas in this chapter of DN. It falls in three sections: a) minor morality (culla-siila), b) middling morality (majjhima-siila), and c) great morality (mahaa-siila).
The minor morality already includes a long list of actions to be avoided. It starts with a list very similar to the ten precepts, but wrong speech is expanded into four wrong actions, avoidance strong drink is absent, and protection of plant life is included.
aamaka-dhanya-pa.tiggaha.na pa.tivirato …
aamaka-ma.msa-pa.tiggahanaa pa.tivirato …
etc.
abstaining from accepting [gifts of] living beings, and land …
acting as messenger, buying and selling, cheating with false weights, bribery and corruption, deception and insincerity, wounding, killing, highway robbery and taking food by force."
Ten precepts of a novice, Vin I 83,31-84,4 (§ 56.1) anujaanaami bhikkhave saama.neraana.m dasa sikkhaapadaani, tesu ca sama.nerehi sikkhitu.m:
_paa.naatipaataa varam.nii, _ adinnaadaanaa verama.nii, abrahmacariyaa verama.nii, muusavaadaa verama.nii, **sura-meraya-majja-pamaada.t.thaana verama.nii,** vikaalabhojanaa varama.nii, nacca-giita-vaadita-visuuka-dassanaa veraama,nii,
_maalaa-gandha–vilepana-dhaara.na-ma.n.dana-_vibhuusana-.t.thaanaa verama.nii, _ uccaasayana-mahaasayanaa verama…nii, jaataaruupa-rajata-pa.tiggaha.naa verama.nii
I agree that the precept against strong drink seems to be later than the other ten precepts, and that solid drugs are not mentioned in the passages, we have looked at. However, the account of the precepts prescribed for novices cannot be very late, I think.
I also think that majja is not a third kind of alkoholic drink, but a general word for drinkable intoxicants.
Theravaada monks in Burma used to chew betel, and the betel nut contains a mild drug. Only for the strict Shwe-gyin school it is forbiden. But I am fairly sure that eatable drugs were also restricted for monks, particularly opium, which is grown in the mountains not so far away.
I think I’m the odd one out here. I’ve done lots of drugs, past tense. As a child of the 60’s and 70’s , drugs were a way of coping and easing the pain of my life. They didn’t lead to any tranquility or insight; just the opposite.
To stay on subject here, I’ll chime in about my experiences with hallucinogens and relate it to my path towards the eradication of dukkha.
In 1974 I took my first LSD trip and loved it. I described it at the time as “I used to see black and white, now I see color.” It was a profound experience that expanded my vision of everything I knew. I did LSD many times but stopped because I thought that it was going to eventually do something irreversibly bad to me.
Fast forward decades. Sitting still on a cushion with my eyes closed for hours, sober and alert, watching the the workings of my mind is much more interesting than LSD could offer.
Early in my practice I seriously contemplated setting up a retreat weekend where I could sit in meditation for a full day or two and then, when really absorbed, take LSD and see if I could go really deep, see something valuable. After a few months of light consideration, I realized why this was a very bad idea.
To me, right view is like a compass, a heading that leads me to a destination. Just one degree off course will ensure that I never reach my goal. No matter my best intentions, LSD might cause me to believe something that isn’t quite correct, that leads me in the wrong direction. That is not something that I want to do. Sitting sober might take a long time, but it seems like the safe way. Besides, it’s challenging enough to pay attention with vast vision and to see clearly as it is without the help of mind altering substances.
LSD might give my something valuable, but probably not and I think the dangers much outweigh the possible benefits.
Also, the thought of meditating with “religious music” or any kind of music is not the kind of meditation I think of as leading towards tranquility or insight.
One last thing. A very strange experience I had at a 10-day retreat about 5 years ago. I had this knot of muscle pain under my lower right shoulder blade that was really killing me. On about day 7, against the rules and my better judgement, I took two aspirin and went to bed. As I lay there trying to go to sleep, I began to feel the aspirin kick in. What took me by complete surprise was it felt exactly like LSD. I was genuinely tripping. To this day I take “drugs” like aspirin, green tea, coffee very lightly and sparingly.
Sure. In order to test my proposition, we should therefore also check to see if mine fits the context. I believe it does. (I am not saying it is definitely correct. But I think it would be fair to follow the process with it).
Are ‘condition’ or ‘state’ not also common meanings? If they are, then this same reasoning applies to my proposition so far.
I would say not list ‘of things such as alcoholic drinks’ but a compound of 3 alcohol terms specifically (as we hae discussed recently).
Regardless of whether we might feel one or the other interpretation is more likely, I think it could be interesting and fair to explore the potential validity of both. Sometimes the truth is not the one which seemed more likely. (Again, I am not saying my proposition is surely correct, I am merely trying to be fair).
So then we know what it meant to that commentator. However, we do know that sometimes the sutta’s meanings and the commentators’ understandings are at odds. So I think it would be fair to not take that commentarial understanding as conclusive.
I heard it mentioned once so I looked into the grammar recently, came up with the translation I provided here and took it to a couple of Pāli teachers to see if there was any fault in my grammatical analysis. They couldn’t find any. Alex Wynne thought it seemed more likely grammatically than the normal interpretation. Again, that is not to say it is necessarily correct. But it made me think it would therefore be worthy at least of some discussion.
Could you explain how this confirms it? How is it that this eliminates the possibility of my proposition? For example, why is it that it cannot mean ‘the state of heedlessness caused by frivolous games’? Pachinko for example, in Japan, can really ruin people. Or even card games. many can play cards and other games and have a lovely time, it can help social bonding, help people feel at ease, be a nice way for a family to spend time instead of watching TV, and can help train the mind even. The question here is whether it is the games that have to be entirely avoided, or the heedlessness which can be triggered by them, or is associated with them.
There is also the question of whether this is as old as the 5th precept, or whether it was made later, being derived from the language of the 5th precept, which seems to me to be a possibility.
If we followed my proposition, then this would mean to abstain from the state of heedlessness caused by alcohol, and also caused by other voluntary activities (i.e. excluding involuntary causes such as sickness), such as some specific drugs or activities, including gampbling etc. That is to say, not to have to abstain from any of them if the result is not heedlessness (plenty of people drink responsibly, including some of the greatest Buddhist masters, for example - and some might even play a game of cards, mindfulness and heedfulness intact.)
Again, this can still be in line. If your aim is to enter a heedless state, that would be against this rule. However if you are capable of drinking and remaining heedful, and you do that, then their would be no fault, neither in intention nor in result.
Out of interest, is there any rule for the monks which explicitely forbids alcohol? Or any teachings to lay people specifically forbidding alcohol? Apart from in the phrasing we have here, since, having other sources on this from the EBT could possibly shed more light on this. I have personally not seen any example yet but would be very interested to.
Right. So it would seem wise to not drink to the point which makes the particular individual in question, heedless. And I expect we are familiar in social circles that that varies from person to person, some friends who really should not drink at all (they may get angry, or they may find it impossible to stop drinking once they start), others who should stop after a couple of pints, others who maybe should have just one glass and it may do them a lot of good (it can help drop some inhibitions which can be used skilfully in some contexts) and so on.
Right. I would guess it would be more likely that people addicted to studying Buddhism would break the precepts by stealing Buddhist ebooks, than someone addicted to pot (which would be a psychological addiction since it is not physically addictive like alcohol or coffee). And we are not going to prohibit the study of Buddhism on the basis that it may cause you to break the 2nd precept!
Right. Unlike pot, alcohol disengages a lot of the power of cognitive regulation of affect, so that impulses are acted on that wouldn’t normally be. That can include compassionate acts, sharing love for one another, dropping hatred even. But also could be violent or inappropriately sexual impulses. If a person has trained their mind at depth, I think even those deeper impulses will have been transformed, so there will eventually not be selfish or harmful-to-others impulses there under cognitive repression. But until that is sorted out, the repression is necessary for keeping sīla. In fact that is what sīla is all about really, isn’t it? Cognitive repression/regulation of impulses.
We could apply that to studying Buddhism too. Some people would be ashamed of that, especially if it were frowned upon by the society they are in (which is the same reason people may lie about smoking pot). But we can’t therefore say refrain from studying Buddhism because it may make you break 4th precept!
If you want a reason to prohibit pot, I would say because it hinders samatha. That’s a very valid reason, if you are training on the Noble Eightfold Path! For lay people not interested in mind training I think it matters far less, and can also have positive effects so that is less clear. But for the path of meditation, it really hinders it.
But that is a very different thing to the reasoning behind avoiding alcohol.
My point is not to say all drugs are fine for Buddhists to do. But Ancient india had words for pot, and there is to my knowledge a total lack of any evidence that pot was ever included in the 5th precept in the EBT, or than anything other than alcohol was, and, as we can see, the reasoning behind avoiding alcohol or even ‘heedlessness caused by alcohol’, that is, to prevent breakage of the other precepts, does not apply to pot. So the reasoning behind including pot in the meaning of the 5th precept is flawed in all these respects.
Right! This is precisely my reasoning why I feel we cannot add any non-alcohol substances back into the EBT meaning of the 5th precept. As you say, “the precept itself is more limited”.
I feel this translation is already interpretive, by translating ‘majja’ as ‘intoxicant’. For example, if I choose to translate it as ‘booze’, then it looks quite different:
“majjan” - whatever other majja (booze) [there is] for the purpose of becoming intoxicated (madaniiya.t.thena), throughh drinking [of which] [a person] is intoxicated (matta), negligent (pamatto), that is called booze (majja);
Do you see what I mean? My point here is just to clarify that this still does not imply that it is referring to anything apart from alcohol, so long as we do not jump to any unproven assumptions.[quote=“akincana, post:92, topic:5928”]
In the discussion following this exegesis, it is said that the rule is broken even if the monastic drinks an alcoholic beverage thinking, that it is non-alkoholic. The opposite case, if he drinks a non-alkoholic beverage thinking it is non-alkohol is still a wrong-doing (dukka.ta).
[/quote]
That’s from the commentaries right?
It does make sense. Otherwise every time a monk got caught they could pretend pretty easily! Or they could trick each other as favours! And just as attempted murder is breaking the law, so in this case should attempted drinking, since the intention to break the rule is there.
Right. I have also seen some places where excessive drinking is advised against. But I am yet to see where lay people are told specifically and unambiguously to not drink. I’ve only seen where is it about moderation. [Also, looks like you may be experiencing the same ‘paste’ issues I am on this site!]
Pot makes one dull-witted and unfocused, impairs memory and manual skills, and makes concentration difficult. It induces cravings for food that are surely conducive to people eating at inappropriate times. And in itself, apart from any further effects it might have, it’s use is a completely unnecessary, and thus wastefully costly, indulgence in distracting sensual pleasure. It is also linked to a variety of other health problems, which constitute avoidable burdens on both oneself and whatever communities one is part of. So questions about precept legalism aside, I cannot see how its use is, overall, conducive to staying on the path, rather than a detriment to the path.
If asked to choose between living in a community of frequent alcohol users or a community of frequent pot users, I would surely choose the latter, since that’s like asking if I prefer to live among jackals or cows. But the question poses a false dichotomy for beings, like us, who needn’t choose either.
Pot makes one dull-witted and unfocused, impairs memory and manual skills, and makes concentration difficult. It induces cravings for food that are surely conducive to people eating at inappropriate times. And in itself, apart from any further effects it might have, it’s use is a completely unnecessary, and thus wastefully costly, indulgence in distracting sensual pleasure. It is also linked to a variety of other health problems, which constitute avoidable burdens on both oneself and whatever communities one is part of.[/quote]Although I don’t quite share what I read into your post as the tone of your message, I can definitely agree to all of the above as someone who occasionally uses recreational marijuana, but who knows people who smoke absolutely inordinate and excessive amounts of it.
It is complicated by a narrative in “drug culture” (there is such a thing, IMO) that weed is some kind of miracle substance that calms the mind and the nerves and brings clarity to thought. I can only imagine it is deliberate denial over what long term excessive (ab)use will do to the mind.
Bhante,
What are the conditions to be fulfilled to break the fifth precept?
What is the source story of implementing the fifth precepts?
Does this support your view?
