We’ve had a few interesting posts on the website this past week concerning the fifth precept:

“I undertake the training rule to abstain from drinks and drugs that cause heedlessness.”

That seems pretty straightforward, and in ancient times, it probably was as simple as it seems. But is it still valid?

Note, this discussion took place at http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/99 (The one about the other precepts)

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently Wrote:
————————————————————————————————————

I have disagree with the notion this precept is telling the practitioner to abstain from all drugs. The best medical studies show that moderate amounts of alcohol and caffeine have beneficial consequences. Why should Buddhist precepts contradict new discoveries in science? If Buddhism is about reality and its true nature, I think it’s time to live the spirit of the precept (avoid that which, for you, could lead to heedless behavior) rather than the letter. This would mean a person with a genetic predisposition towards addiction (heedlessness) might have to weigh the benefits vs. obstacles of drinking or using a drug much more carefully than one who can easily handle, say, a glass of wine every day (especially if prescribed by a doctor) or an occasional marijuana joint. Also, you said this precept even covers caffeine, but weren’t Zen Buddhist monks known for their use of green tea? In short, this precept seems to be more about avoiding heedlessness, not about which substances you choose to use. Under a strict reading of the precept, even chocolate contains a drug that could lead to heedlessness. I think the key focus should be on one’s behavior subsequent to taking a drug or drink. If the behavior leads to suffering, stop using ‚Äî if not, why stop?
————————————————————————————————————
My Response:
————————————————————————————————————

I am personally still not convinced about the benefits of alcohol that some studies have shown; I think that the tendency to overdo it outweighs any small potential health benefits. It’s just too easy to start down the path to a real addiction problem. That’s just my opinion.

“this precept seems to be more about avoiding heedlessness, not about which substances you choose to use.”

No, I absolutely disagree on this. It specifically mentions intoxicants, there is no vagueness about it. I think in this case it is very clear that they mean intoxicant-induced heedlessness. General “sober stupidity” is another matter entirely, and there are plenty of prohibitions against that sort of foolishness in Buddhism.

I personally don’t drink alcohol (ever) or take any kind of non-medicinal drugs. I do, however, love my caffeine, whether in coffee or soda. I see little harm in it, but I can see where it might affect concentration while meditating. I’m not going to justify it; I know it’s not the optimum situation. Someday I may choose to work on breaking that habit, but right now, I see bigger problems that I need to focus on. As with everything in Buddhism, it’s up to you to work out what is best for you.

It’s not for me to condemn imbibing occasionally in small quantities. The precept itself is pretty clear on the subject, but if science were to unequivocally prove that small amounts were good for you, then Buddhism would adapt to allow it‚Ķ or maybe not in this case since it can still lead to addiction.

————————————————————————————————————
To Which That Reader Responded:
————————————————————————————————————

You wrote: ‚ÄúI personally don’t drink alcohol (ever) or take any kind of non-medicinal drugs. I do, however, love my caffeine, whether in coffee or soda. I see little harm in it, but I can see where it might affect concentration while meditating.‚Äù

By the same token, I see little harm in drinking a glass of wine that has been recommended by my personal physician. We never see harm in taking that which with we are comfortable. Plus the precept is a 2,500-year-old suggestion ‚Äî not a commandment. While the wisdom of not abusing drugs cannot be argued, the people who promulgated this precept knew little about the effects of intoxicants compared to modern research. And, I have to add, there IS some vagueness in a sense about the precept given that it is so old. Very few ancient sayings have survived intact so we really don’t know how it was originally presented ‚Äî ask any honest Bible scholar. The best we can do is ask: Does it make sense given what we know. When we ‚Äúclose the book‚Äù and say ‚ÄúNo further discussion‚Äù or ‚Äúin this case, it is very clear‚Äù we risk making Buddhism into a fundamentalist religion. Obviously, this case is not very clear, or this disagreement (and I see it as a merely friendly disagreement) would not exist.

Also, ask yourself: If green tea was OK for ancient Zen practitioners, why should you worry about trying to quit caffeine?

Science has unequivocally proven small amounts of alcohol are beneficial, therefore, my Buddhism has adapted. This is not my opinion, several studies over a number of years have shown the benefits of moderate alcohol in fighting heart disease and (with wine) increasing antioxidants. Granted, overuse is unhealthy but that is true in the use of any natural substance — food, alcohol, drugs, plants, etc. My 21st-century adaptation of the precept is:

“I undertake the training rule to abstain from misusing drinks and drugs that cause heedlessness.”

By the same token, I try to space my daily wine apart from zazen meditation (same for green tea) because I do recognize that even a glass could interfere in a small way but that’s a far cry from eliminating it from my diet. I also try not to eat heavy meals near this time since the chemicals in foods can also affect meditation. It’s all about moderation (feel free to append this to my previous comment).
——————————————————————

Comment on this post at either this post:

Or the original: http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/99

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently Wrote:
————————————————————————————————————

I was born a “Baptist.” I never understood such a claim, for there was never a choice. This began in the crib. Something about belief, without evidence, just never set correct with me. The man of cloth, in Sunday School brought reassurance to my disbelief. I asked him to respect the invisible box around us. My box should never occupy his. He thought otherwise, and claimed, “. . . the Lord is with me.”

To this, I was clear in my reply, “But neither you or “He” have right to be with me, without an invitation.” That was some 20 years ago, but every scar holds pretty certain memories. That was when my belief in “God” received its second strike. We’re a baseball nation, so three strikes, you’re out. “His” third came when I died in my car accident, giving a prayer both in desperation and hope. Not for me. Hope for myself hadn’t worked before, and now there were others at risk. I prayed that “He” would take my soul for any other of my passengers, if not all.

As you may guess, it failed to be granted. After the first strikes against “God,” I’d already begun slowly researching other beliefs. Little less than a month ’til my seventeenth birthday the accident occurred. The coma, then 5 years of rehab held me from my research. Zen, Tao, Chi, all still interest me. But claim of faith to any of them, without any clearness as to what belief in would entail held me weary. As I listened to one of the first two lessons I downloaded, you did answer what belief in Buddhism would require as practice; meditate. If there’s more please, direct this lost puppy in a wheelchair to the titles which will make his belief in Buddhism clear.

————————————————————————————————————
My Response:
————————————————————————————————————

As for your question about practice and what should you do:

1. Meditation is important, yes, but it’s not everything.
2. Even more important is proper behavior towards yourself and others. I did some lessons about the “Five Precepts,” which are the “rules” of Buddhism. This was Episode 7 if you have all the older shows. If you look through the list of the five rules, it should be pretty obvious that they are intended to be practical and useful in real life. They might not necessarily be FUN, but it’s hard to argue they are good rules.

That’s pretty much it if you want to be a “decent” Buddhist. You can do more of course.

3. Buddhism is at its heart an internal, mental thing. That’s why meditation is emphasized. Reading and learning more about the ideas of Buddhism can only help you in your life, so it can be a continuous process of learning.

Really the bottom line of Buddhism is that it’s not about faith. It’s about practicality and reason. You can see for yourself that the precepts are for your benefit or the benefit of others, but not for the benefit of some invisible god. After you have been meditating regularly for some time, you will see real benefits with that as well. You don’t need to BELIEVE anything in Buddhism. Try these things and you will SEE the results.

Depending on what you read, Buddhism can be wrapped inside a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo. That, in my opinion, is the main reason Buddhism is not more popular in the West, and my main goal in creating the Daily Buddhism; to make it accessible to everyone.

Compassion
This is not so much a question as it is an insightful comment by a reader. This was in response to the “So You Want To Be a Buddhist” post from a while back.

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently Wrote:
————————————————————————————————————

I was once fortunate enough to have a very unintentional and random encounter with the Dalai Lama. He pretty much stepped out of a vehicle in front of me at a Tibetan festival in DC some years back. He allowed me a very intimate moment with him, and I sort of asked him the question you posed here with my one question. He told me, “just learn compassion.”

I have faltered many times. I have struggled to make the genuine step from cognition of the path to actually walking it. As I have improved, I did find that focusing my practice on compassion for all beings fosters genuine but subtle transformation. Remember, compassion for all beings includes self. Don’t beat yourself up so much.

Fundamental change (and this is what this for so many of us) is a long walk. This is not religious magic, and the sooner you give up the salvation mindset the better. Buckle in and stay put. Ignore counting the mile markers and let go of this pressure that is only making this harder for you.

————————————————————————————————————
My Response:
————————————————————————————————————
Compassion is big, and everything you say there is absolutely true. I especially like your phras, “This is not religious magic,”and that idea leads directly into tomorrow’s reader letter.

“Bad Language”

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently wrote:
————————————————————————————————————

Often, as I read English-language Buddhist resources, I am bombarded with terms from Pali, Tibetan and Sanskrit. Perhaps it would be more helpful if Buddhist teachers translated (as accurately as possible) the various Buddhistic terms into English (or whatever language needed for the culture) rather than expecting the practitioner to keep a vocabulary list going. Since clarity is beneficial and if Buddhism really is adaptable, then using one’s own language in its study should not be a big deal. I’m not trying to be Anglo-centric but it seems like we all lay it on thick some times.

When I was involved in the Southern Baptist Church, many pastors would often revert to Greek or Hebrew words from the Bible in an apparent effort to gloss over a difficult passage for the congregation. We should be able to communicate Buddhism clearly in any language without reference to its antecedents.

Plus, I feel like some beginners may attach to an idea that may be verbalized as follows: “Wow, this Buddhism is really cool because it uses Asian words of which I am unfamiliar. That means it is special because of the words” (rather than the concepts behind the words). Sometimes, you can almost hear the condescension when a teacher begins to pour out these words (“I know Pali, what a good boy am I”) It’s just something to think about.

Buddhism is a philosophy that transcends continental boundaries — so should its concepts and linguistics.

————————————————————————————————————
And my response:
————————————————————————————————————

I get that impression a lot. Some people and groups act like the words themselves have some kind of power. I’m not sure if I have related this story here yet or not, but the only local sangha nearby (in Dayton, Ohio) is a Tibetan group. They chant in Tibetan every week. The chants are printed on little cards with phonetic ‚Äúsounds‚Äù printed on them. Why? No one there is actually Tibetan, and I would bet my bottom dollar that few of the attendees can translate. What is the point of that?

Last week I used the phrase ‚Äúmystical mumbo-jumbo,‚Äù but that’s not the same as simply using too much jargon.

Obviously, I agree with you completely on this, and I’ve tried to keep the ‚Äúbig words‚Äù to a bare minimum. When I introduce a topic, I will also tell you the ‚Äúterm‚Äù that accompanies it, but if I use that idea later, I try not to assume the reader knows it. Lots of people are new to the list, or haven’t heard all the audio shows, or whatever. Why assume the reader knows all the terms? For the most part, Buddhism is made up of many relatively simple concepts. Why get bogged down in terminology?

That being the case, I think the Daily Buddhism Website should have some kind of glossary of terms. I have introduced some of the jargon already; karma, anatman, dharma, mudras, and the like. There are some concepts where it’s just easier to use the common word; it’s not hard to learn the difference between dharma and karma. Still, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have one easy place to refer to these terms. I’ll start adding to a list and get something posted soon.

In the meantime, has anyone come across any terms, concepts, or jargon they would like me to help explain? Send it in!

I have one more reader comment on the ‚ÄòGreat Intoxication Debate‚Äù from last week (see the comments on last week’s post here and here), and then I think I’m going to let that subject go for a while ‚Ķ until it comes up again- somehow I don’t think we’ve really resolved it, or that we ever will for some.

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently wrote:
————————————————————————————————————

Brian, first of all thank you for the huge effort you have been putting into this!

As to my 2 cents worth on this – I agree with Kimberly, it’s about the Third Way – whatever that is and while I agree that personally you cannot go wrong with abstinence. This is not necessarily true in social situations were refusal to imbibe may cause hurtful or offence in the same way as refusing food or gifts.

It is not for me to judge what is right or wrong, it is for me to avoid doing harm and if this means having a glass of wine or beer so be it.

From other Buddhist lectures on this topic I’ve taken away the impression that this precept addresses exactly your worry: gateway drugs that start you on the slippery slop and the idea is perhaps “don’t even lead me into temptation”.

Most things we do have some kind of “drug effect” on us – our body produces its own opiate derivative: endorphins – they can be released through a variety of things, exercise, sex, food … so my understanding of the precept is to avoid heedlessness and realise that to stay on the middle way we need to know what our boundaries are.

Do Christians Have Karma?

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently wrote:
————————————————————————————————————

I was born and raised a hell-fire and brimstone Baptist. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher and I literally grew up in church. By the time I was in my teens I had begun to question my upbringing and have finally been able to break the bonds of my teachings and am now trying to follow the Buddhist Way. My deeply religious family do not know of my conversion and it is easy for me to practice my Buddhism as I live in the Southwest and they are in the Midwest.

I have a question, however, regarding rebirth and karma. If a person follows another religion, I assume that they are still subject to accumulating karma and experiencing rebirth(s) until they too reach enlightenment. Is this a correct assumption even though the person may think that their religion is the only true religion and the rest of us are Pagans destined to an eternity in their Christian hell?

Thank you for your daily emails and weekly podcasts. For beginners like myself they have been extremely educational and insightful.

————————————————————————————————————
My Response:
————————————————————————————————————

Yes, what you said is correct. It doesn’t matter what a person BELIEVES, if karma and rebirth are the way the universe actually works, then religious belief is not going to lock you into damnation or anything of that sort. Everyone’s thoughts and actions raise or lower their karma. Christians or Wiccans or Atheists or (fill in blank) can still accumulate positive karma. Buddhists obviously believe that their way is the best and will lead to full enlightenment and escape from this cycle in the most expedient way.

Can non-Buddhists ever actually escape the cycle of rebirth? I cannot say for a fact obviously, but Buddhist doctrine would say that reaching that point is extremely difficult. Very few of even the “best” Buddhists make it. I guess it’s theoretically possible for a non-Buddhist to achieve enlightenment, but I doubt it’s common or even likely. That being said, I see no reason why a good Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or whatever cannot achieve a good rebirth through good works and a good life. Maybe they’ll pick up Buddhism next time around.

If others think you are wrong, they may tell you you’re going to Hell for your beliefs. If you think ‚Äìthey- are the ones in the wrong, you can only tell them they’re coming back for another chance.

Which is more compassionate in your eyes?

————————————————————————————————————
A Reader recently wrote:

————————————————————————————————————

I have what is probably a really dumb question,

I am attempting to follow a vegetarian lifestyle. I also share my home with three cats and two dogs and one foster cat. I am a big animal activist. But, doesn’t the purchase of pet food, which is made out of animal bi-products, going against the Right Action Precept? What, in general, are the Zen belief on pet ownership (for lack of better terms)?

————————————————————————————————————
And my response:
————————————————————————————————————

Dumb question? No way! This is actually very interesting, and nowhere near as simple as it may sound. I couldn’t find anything in writing on the subject, so all that follows is just my logical stream of thought on this. I could well be wrong or taken the wrong line of reasoning. I’m going to guess that others will chime in on this topic on the blog.

We have discussed vegetarianism here in the past, (http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/59 and the comments beneath it). Different groups have differing opinions on the topic. I think everyone agrees that in theory vegetarianism is best, but most groups do not require it, not even for monks. That’s not really your question, but I wanted to remind people about that discussion if they want to refer to it.

Now, your dogs and cats are meat-eaters, so feeding them requires some other animal to be killed. My understanding of your question is whether or not buying “meat” for your pets is a bad thing.

Many Buddhists believe people with negative karma are reborn as dogs. Dogs are not intelligent enough to raise their karma on their own, so they essentially have to remain dogs until their negative karma has worn off. Eventually, they will get another chance to become human again and can work on reaching Nirvana. I think the important idea to get from that is that karma doesn’t work the same way for animals as it does for people because they are not able to affect their own karma, at least not to any great extent.

Some animals, such as cats and dogs, are carnivores by nature. They cannot survive on a vegetarian diet. They eat meat because they have to; it’s the way of things. There is no negative connotation or bad karma involved when a cat kills a mouse. It’s just in the nature of the animal. If you were not in the picture, and the animal lived out in the wild on its own, it would kill and eat meat on its own, oblivious to karma, Buddhism, or any of the high ideals that humans have.

It is true that by buying dog food, you are paying someone to kill animals; this taken alone is a bad thing. However, if the pet food makers did not kill the animals, your animals would do it themselves. Either way a food animal dies. This seems to me to be a “zero balance” situation, and the net karma is unchanged.

Therefore, I am going to say pet food is probably a “karma neutral” situation.

Also keep in mind that by treating your pets well, you are increasing your own karma, and the positive psychological effects of pet ownership probably affects your own karma as well. Pet ownership overall is a good thing for a Buddhist.

I can see where this could be argued several other ways, so this is definitely not the only way to view this subject.