I would like to understand more clearly the precept related to dealing with intoxicants. I have in particular two examples in mind related to situations I know.
In Southern Europe many peasants cultivate some grapes which is part of a long tradition. In some cases they make wine but don’t sell it directly to People but to shops. In many cases they nowadays don’t make wine themselves but sell the grapes at a very cheap price actually to big companies who then make wine. They often need to do this to feed their family. But they do this knowing that the grapes will be turned into wine. Are they still practicing wrong livelihood? at wich Point do you draw the line?
The same question of where you draw the line applies to people who deal in whiskey caskets without ever having it bottled and sold to the consumers. There are trading platforms that allow you to do that. So also here where do you draw the line? Do you break the precepts when you grow malt? When you trade in caskets? Or when you are in a supermarket selling it? Which is also complicated because if you are employed by a supermarket you cannot decide what they sell.
Two of these cases above are related to people I know but in general it would be interesting in to understand where you draw the line precisely.
You are conflating the precepts with wrong livelihood. They are not the same thing. Kind of a technical point, but it would be good to start things out with clarity.
Thank you I changed the wording. Actually when I was writing the question I had the doubt when I mentioned the word precepts that it was not appropriate but I used it anyway so thank you for clarifying that these are separate things
You might also do a search for right livlihood here on the forum. Doing a google search for the commentary story to Dhp 124 brought me back to this post. It’s not exactly related, and it doesn’t fall under EBT, but it at least gives some old Buddhist thought on the matter.
Where lines are drawn is interesting. Intoxicants is one of the five precepts. Let’s try a thought experiment with another precept.
A munitions factory makes devices specifically meant to kill and harm. The workers there don’t actually directly administer the munitions. There are different kinds of workers there: designers, engineers, fabricators, assembly workers, administrators, accountants, attorneys, cafeteria workers, janitorial staff, security, etc. Then there are companies that provide goods and service to the munitions factory: metals, chemicals, minerals, wiring, electronics, etc. There are vendors who sell to the factory computers, software programs, manufacturing equipment, tools, lighting, uniforms, printing services, etc.
Who breaks a precept in the chain? The designer of a missile? Those who enable the designer to operate? The person who sells a lathe to make the missile? What if a person who is a delivery driver for a uniform company and that person’s service route is to the munitions factory? Does that person ask to be reassigned to another route or does the person not work for the uniform company because they do business with the munitions factory?
