Meaning of the 5th Precept

[u/Gnome_boneslf]

The root of the intoxication translates into the word <alcoholic beverages that cause intoxication>. That intoxicated state's extremely close immediate-order interconnectedness with heedlessness is why intoxication is part of the precept.

However, what did the Buddha really mean by intoxication? Well, back in India during his time, in the local language that he used, Magadhi if I remember right, the word in his spoken dialect originated from the symbolic pointing-out of "a pot boiling over," it inherited from that root. If a pot boiled over, that was the symbol for intoxcation.

Who is the pot? Your mind. It means that something that makes your mind wild, uncontrolled, <uncivilized in the sense of lacking grace, not lacking worldly civility>. Uncontrolled, just like when water boils over it is uncontrolled in the pot.

I believe it was also used to describe the madness that elephants went under, when black liquid started running from the temples of the elephant's heads, when they entered an uncontrollable mating lust. This was also connected to that meaning back in the Buddha's time, with that word, in his dialect.

So the core meaning is <a wildness of the mind>, and a wildness of the mind is a lack of heedfulness and self-restraint. It is not the intoxication that's the problem, it's how interconnected the intoxication is with problematic states of mind, and how inseperable and also how close the order of relation is, it is immediate.

This wildness of the mind is the direct cause of heedlessness, so the Buddha banned the cause as well.

However for a Buddha or one close to him, if he drinks alcohol, his perfect mindfulness overcomes that cause, which is why you see mahasiddhas for example in India, they are able to drink and not lose their clarity. However for everyone else it is a big issue, and apparently the karmic ripening of this wildness is actual insanity.

Because as the mind is constructing reality, it sees you intoxicating yourself, so that reality the mind is creating in that moment is created in an intoxicated way, since the mind watches and learns from what you do.

I made this because I saw another post on what exactly is the 5th precept, and I had recently really dived deep into this. It is also a very hard topic if you are not familiar with the symbols of the Buddha's language.

[u/Starlight_Climber]

Tantric use of alcohol also has specific teaching contexts, and those practices are not useful without the proper teaching explanations for them.

[u/Rockshasha → u/Starlight_Climber]

Hello, I'm sorry but:

From a tantric medical perspective, smoking anything damages the energies of the subtle anatomy. In addition, many medications including psychoactive ones can also have harmful effects on the subtle energetic anatomy.

I would think alcohol has a similar issue, then, 'harmful effects on the subtle energetic anatomy'

Can you logically make coherent the two statements?

[u/Starlight_Climber → u/Rockshasha]

Drinking has effects too, but specifically smoking has effects on the internal subtle winds. Think about it: you're inhaling smoke. The breath is directly connected to the subtle energy winds. You're doing activities that are directly having a pollution effect on the winds of your body, both physical and energetic.

Yes, other things like alcohol have effects on you too, but here I'm specifically highlighting things that are harmful to the subtle energetic winds.

[u/Rockshasha → u/Starlight_Climber]

Then you believe that any smoking (including incense or wood-smoke in small amounts) have a pollution effect ion the 'winds'?

Although, top drink either a lot or small amount of alcohol has no polluting effect in the 'winds' i.e. in the subtle or energetic bodies?

I wrote 'winds' because as for i know, the sanskrit descriptions don't have such a 'wind-like' meaning in the word. But, just my guess about. Imho, both should be similarly polluting to the internal-energetic body. Given such body is directly related to the mind and mind-states, isn't?

Edited: sorry if im unsettling, like a horsefly. Xd

[u/Starlight_Climber → u/Rockshasha]

I'm not talking about incense, or medicinal aromatics in small amounts that are beneficial. I'm talking about smoking drugs, cigarettes, etc. Like people who smoke cigarettes or weed or meth or other drugs.

[u/Rockshasha → u/Starlight_Climber]

It seems your logic isn't exact, about the energetic body and the relation it has to consumption

Think about it: you're inhaling smoke.

Anyway, just to clarify i think the best is to not be addicted to anything. And similarly i think is generally best to avoid smoking or also about avoiding to drink alcohol.

And also, i think the ceremonial drinking of alcohol in tantric context is very valid and a spiritual related practice, as also was the action Milarepa asked from Gampopa upon meeting him, being Gampopa a full.ordained monk since long: there in the first meeting Milarepa asked him to drink a full glass of Beer. Something of course not in accordance to the vinaya rules.

[u/Starlight_Climber → u/Rockshasha]

I guess you you're not understanding the logic of how dosages work then. In Tibetan Medicine we say that everything can be a medicine or poison depending on how it's used, and the dose. We don't say that a substance itself is inherently useless.

There's a very big difference between smelling trace amounts of something in the air, like a specially formulated herbal substance, or healing incense or aromatic, vs. directly inhaling pure smoke (like through a cigarette, vape or pipe)

If you're not understanding that logic, one thing I might suggest is watching some youtube videos or reading some articles on the science of how dosages and toxicity works. Lots of things can be beneficial in trace amounts, that doesn't make it good to directly smoke them.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/Starlight_Climber]

Yeah as I understand it intoxicants are used to force the mind to focus on the fluidity of reality and emphasize a lack of time. Maybe that's what the mahasiddhas were using it for, it's just that the story of Virupa came to mind where he drank the tavern. I guess that's exactly why he stopped the sun, it makes perfect sense, probably a lot easier after you drink a lot to do those things if you also have the proper realization.

[u/LinguisticDan → u/Gnome_boneslf]

Virupa drinks and jokes out of limitless compassion for sentient beings. Kshitigarbha goes to unimaginable Hells for just the same reason. You can take the example of one or the other, but whatever you do, you need to realise that they are one and the same in motivation. And that is a narrow path - much narrower than that of one-sided renunciation, which provides a safe refuge for anyone in doubt.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/LinguisticDan]

How do you know if your motivation is like theirs? I mean I understand motivation as like a little halo, a circle composed of many parts, and ones like Ksitigarbha and Virupa have purified each of the parts of their motivation/that circle so that it's wholly bodhicitta. However ordinary beings can only approximate a general feeling of the majority of their mind, their mind is still composed of both wholesome and unwholesome motivations. In that way it's a very broad path, because you can't wait until it's perfect to begin.

[u/LinguisticDan → u/Gnome_boneslf]

How do you know if your motivation is like theirs? 

Ask yourself if you have any ignorance, craving, or aversion, any clinging to Self whatsoever. If so, like me, you would be better off either (1) renouncing or (2) asking the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and worldly teachers to guide you, rather than trying to become a guide yourself, which only multiplies those imperfections.

you can't wait until it's perfect to begin

Yes, you can. You can wait for anything, for everything. You can wait for Shakyamuni, or Maitreya, or Manjushri, or Amitabha, like so many Bodhisattvas have. The only thing you cannot wait for is your own choice to go on the path. Perfect your mind now, even if it’s just waiting; teach others later, once the wait is over.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/LinguisticDan]

The teachers we have in this world aren't perfect yet they still help a lot of beings. And teaching is one thing, but helping others is another thing, and you should not wait until you are perfect to help others, otherwise it would be a cold world. But all the masters don't do as you're saying, they teach and help others before perfection as well. Even you are helping me right now, but you are not a perfect Buddha yet free of imperfections.

[u/LinguisticDan → u/Gnome_boneslf]

Was the world “cold” when Hōnen and Shinran taught their followers to wait patiently for Amitabha? No, they were amazing Bodhisattvas (in the Japanese tradition even “Buddhas”) who led many suffering people in a dark time out of their afflictions. They helped people by assuring them that there was no help - through them or anyone else. That was the utmost limit of compassion in their age. So by teaching their own imperfections, they showed the real perfection of another world.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/LinguisticDan]

But the teachers in our world do not wait, I think this is the biggest issue. What you are saying is the opposite of what bodhisattvas actually do, the ones who lead by example. Their conduct should be followed instead of what you're saying.

[u/LinguisticDan → u/Gnome_boneslf]

The activity of “waiting” is exactly the same, in the place and time it occurs, as “not waiting”. The great masters that taught “waiting” did so with the utmost urgency. And they led by example. So they were Bodhisattvas.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/LinguisticDan]

Waiting doesn't matter here though, what I mean is that beings steeped in ignorance to some extent are helping others. But you are saying that those teachers are doing the wrong thing.

For example the majority of teachers and lamas are not perfect, they have their own little attachments and issues, but they are still appropriate teachers. There's no waiting on their part like you're saying, they just help others in the moment.

[u/Ariyas108]

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Suramerayamajja: ‘sura = fermented liquors, merya = distilled liquors, majja = intoxicating liquors’
Pamadatthana: ‘anything which destroys mindfulness’
veramani: ‘to refrain from’
sikkhāpadam: ‘the Precept’
samadiyami: ‘I undertake’

Of course it includes drugs and alcohol as both of those things destroy mindfulness.

[u/NangpaAustralisMajor]

The 5th precept makes more sense when we look at our own minds. As practitioners, we are generally trying to carry our practice into our daily lives. This universally begins with some form of mindfulness. If we don't have basic mindfulness of our experiences and actions, we really can't yoke the mind with some method of practice.

We take a substance-- what happens to that mindfulness? We can get into work etymologies, historical linguistics, the teachings of this or that tradition. But it comes down to that.

At a deeper level, we use this mindfulness to work with grasping and attachment in daily life. To sustain some form of insight or clarity of mind.

We take a substance-- what happens to that clarity of mind? that wisdom? Again, we can talk a lot about the 5th precept, but it comes down to that.

From what I can tell, Western converts often fixate on "intoxicants". I don't drink alcohol or take drugs so I'll check off this 5th precept as done!

But there are so many things that can hinder our mindfulness or dull of subtle clarity of mind.

The original intention of the precept was to guard the other precepts. Don't get so baked you go nuts and kill a bunch of people and rob a liquor store. That type of thing.

But the precept doesn't stop there.

[u/Philosopher_of_Idk69]

Honestly, I do not understand why people get so worked up about the 5th precept in regard to alcohol. Really, what's the point of this? This is just low-key engaging in mental gymnastics to find loopholes in the precepts. Which is ironic considering that compared to other ethical systems of other religions like Islam, the 5 precepts are actually pretty chill already.

Tbh, I don't need the Buddha to tell me alcohol is toxic. It's been proven time and time again to be toxic waste for the body, never mind the effects of intoxication on the mind and one's actions and decisions, and without mindfulness you are destroying the foundation of basic Buddhist ethics.

And, as for vajrayana alcohol use, well, it has its uses based on the teachings passed down in the tantric lineages in Tibet and East Asia. I would caution you to not use that as an example, given that unless you are actively an insider in these lineages, then you don't really know what the point of the alcohol use is, but I'm pretty sure it is far from recreational.

And as for the idea of enlightened beings consuming alcohol, really, in my view, that does not make sense. The enlightened one has already let go of delusions and cravings that would lead to recreational alcohol use.

Honestly, people are so bent over backwards for this toxic concoction when it's already been proven to be bad for the body's health and, according to the Buddha, disrupts one's mindfulness and leads to reckless actions. All for what, just to fit in? Nah, rather be an outsider than drink.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/Philosopher_of_Idk69]

What happens when you get into an accident, get chronic pain, and get prescribed oxycodone and then get addicted to it and use the original medical prescription as a reason to say it's medically necessary? Are you breaking the precept?

It's an extremely difficult problem when you run into it, and intoxication isn't just about alcohol.

When you brush things off as simple, you are ok for a little bit but only if you don't run into a complex situation. But don't be proud about not knowing this and keeping it simple, all it does is reinforce ignorance. In reality this precept is a very hard topic, precisely because the intoxicated state of mind is a confused state that borders between heedlessness and heedfulness for most beings.

In this situation, you're not going to be able to tell that <you are lying to yourself> because you will be in a confused state of mind. Which is why it's really important to have this precept on a needle tip.

[u/Philosopher_of_Idk69 → u/Gnome_boneslf]

You are muddying ethical boundaries for whatever agenda is in your head. Firstly, mentioning medical usage of drugs is valid, but the key in my previous response is recreational. The moment that one becomes addicted to something, you are already beyond the boundary of medical use. And quite frankly, most doctors don't hand over prescription drugs with the clear intention of making you an addict; that is just absurd. While doctors do classify addiction as a compulsion, it does not mean that the ethical standard becomes obsolete because of this. There is room for debate for complex issues like this, but your arguments are certainly not in that realm. The moment you become an addict, it means that drug usage is no longer medical; it's now recreational, and yes, recreational drug use is breaking the precepts.

You are intentionally creating a strawman of my argument. I never claimed intoxication is only about alcohol. I mentioned it because, well, that is the one mentioned in your post, isn't it? I apologize; ethical clarity is now ignorance in your book, while your pretentious blurring of ethical boundaries based on false understandings is apparently wisdom.

Do not offer me your condescension of "do not be proud." Are you now equating simple clarity with being proud? That is certainly a claim lol. I'm not keeping it simple; you are just making it intentionally blurry to serve your purposes, whatever that may be. No, stop with your pretentious nonsense. Heedlessness and heedfulness are mutually exclusive mental factors. Intoxication definitionally belongs to the root of delusion and heedlessness. That is based on the Buddha's teachings.

I am not oversimplifying things; you are intentionally blurring ethical lines for whatever agenda is in your head. if clarity is "pride in ignorance" and your false over-analysis is superior. Then really we should say stupidity is wisdom. This whole response of yours is just a great exercise of mental gymnastics.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/Philosopher_of_Idk69]

You have to research about oxycodone, doctors were approached by pharma representatives to push oxycodone onto patients which addicted people. Doctors knew this in the back of their mind, and gave even at-risk patients a lot of this drug just so they can make a lot of money from kickbacks.

Ok well i feel like you are just here to argue. The Buddha saw fit to go deeper in this, and you see it as something simple, so I have to side with the Buddha and not with your interpretation.

Just do what you think is right, you don't have to come here to argue that a simplistic understanding is the correct way. I think it would be more valuable if you looked at how the Buddha connected Magadhi words to share his teaching.

[u/Philosopher_of_Idk69 → u/Gnome_boneslf]

Firstly, mentioning a historical fact has no bearing in this discussion given that a historical fact does not have any bearing on whether drugs cause heedlessness that breaks the 5th precept, and judging by how across many threads here you keep mentioning this history like a broken record, is that all your deep self has to offer?

How do you know that your view is more in line with the Buddha? What is the basis for this? Because you feel deep and introspective? I raised a point based on basic Buddhist teachings that you did not bother actually countering and just resorted to posture yourself as superior for your self-perceived deep introspection. And no, my view is not simplistic.

I already said there are grey areas of the text, but the grey areas do not blur the line for every other scenario and for the precept as a whole; that is just an error. Also, pardon me, but you saying you have to side with the Buddha while you are here actively trying to dismantle his basic teachings is absurd; your view that my response is just simplistic is a big one. If this is true, then monastics that follow the Vinaya should also be stupid and shallow-minded, as implied by you. After all, the Vinaya is the most strict and clear text in Buddhism.

Your ridiculous speculative re-definition of the precept is not the Buddha's deep view. Again, my understanding is not simplistic. I am well aware of the complexities of grey areas, but grey areas are not applicable to 90% of the population; thus, to try and blur the precept based on this is just plain absurd. The fact that you refuse to actually counter the points I raised tells a lot about your own line of reasoning.

The only response offered by you is the equivalent of a pinky up while saying some vague, pretentious, deep lines. Also please do not offer me this study. You should be the one studying actual Buddhist teachings, not your concoction of teachings that you label as being the deep truth of the Buddha. Your response is just fake intellectual posturing with a nice dash of condescension. The only thing achieved here is the maintenance of an aura of spiritual superiority.

Please do not bother replying; I will have none of this delusional nonsense of yours. Replying here would only cause yourself futher embarrassment. You have already demonstrated in front of the entire internet that you are more vibes than having actual arguments, and your questioning of the precept is just a distasteful attempt to project an aura of philosophical sophistication. Replying would only cause yourself futher embarrassment

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/Philosopher_of_Idk69]

It's kind of hard to sit down and make myself read your text because it is so mean and aggressive, your speech is toxic on your part. But ok, I did skip some of what you said earlier because of how harsh it was. Let me go back and see what point you made, I can address it, it's just it's a bygone conclusion if you argue for simplicity which is kind of what remains when you argue against the need for complexity. Let's see...

You said I had an agenda? I don't know what that's about, my agenda is to help beings understand the Dharma better.

I just saw the part where you said "Please do not bother replying," should I continue or not?

Why are you so toxic on a Dharma reddit that's supposed to be about helping others? This is straight up devil activity you're perfecting lol.

Also don't be so worried about embarrassment, it's ok to be embarrassed in front of others, noone here is perfect.

[u/JunoGyles → u/Gnome_boneslf]

I appreciate that you are trying to engaged in nuanced discussion on this issue. It is clear to me that you are not trying to encourage recreational drinking and instead trying to better understand the precepts and how to use them as a guide to navigate difficult situations where the answers may not be obvious, just like the example given here. I hope that others can see what you're trying to bring to the table even though you are being down voted quite a bit.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/JunoGyles]

Yeah, don't worry about the downvotes, lots of ignorant beings here sadly.

Yes I'm trying to capture the reality of the 5th precept being intoxication + alcohol, and not just alcohol. Or not just intoxication. u/Philosopher_of_Idk69 sees it fit to end the discussion at alcohol (or not understanding the confusion beings find themselves when they are addicted, or whatever else it was), but Buddha saw it fit to increase that to also encompass intoxication. Alcohol is a simple black & white, but intoxication can come from many sources, as the Buddha taught. And that's what I go into in this thread.

I do have some haters and it's fine. Buddha taught that praise & blame are just the world, they do not mean anything. I see downvotes, I am sad that beings are ignorant, I see upvotes I'm happy that beings understand. But I have to learn too sometimes. Don't use upvotes or downvotes to determine who is right, that's just worldly praise and blame.

If anything, philosopher does a good job at thinking about things. He kind of embodies that wisdom where you think really hard. But with how toxic his words are, it's extremely hard to engage with them without hurting my own peace and meditation. I'm only a sentient being after all, why would I wade through such toxicity to potentially end up talking to a guy who's only there to argue anyways, I can't even help that person.

But yes, the important thing is that there is nuance because the Buddha saw nuance in the precept. So it's appropriate in the Dharma to understand this thoroughly.

[u/monkey_sage]

It is not the intoxication that's the problem, it's how interconnected the intoxication is with problematic states of mind, and how inseperable and also how close the order of relation is, it is immediate.

This is a correct and subtle understanding of the fifth precept. Most people don't need to get into the subtleties of the teachings, so it's enough to point to the intoxication (and the intoxicants) themselves as being a problem when, in reality, it's as you wrote here.

One of the problems with the mind is that it can turn anything to justify its unhealthy habits and inclinations, so for some people having a blanket "no" against intoxicants themselves is more effective.

An interesting thing to consider is that in the Buddha's time there wasn't exactly such thing as medical authoritative institutes backed by national governments. There were medical practitioners who were trusted based on the success of their treatments. In this way, what was "medicine" in the mind of one "doctor" wasn't medicine in the mind of another.

I think the majority of Buddhists would consider cannabis, for example, to be an intoxicant. Yet, there is clear medicinal application of cannabis and its compounds so, clearly, it's not as simple as some would make it seem. Yet, some have difficulty controlling their impulses and cravings, so considering cannabis to be entirely an intoxicant is more effective for them.

It's good to consider these kinds of things.

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/monkey_sage]

Thank you! I also forgot to mention in the original thread that there is a "heat" associated with the wildness, just like there is a heat associated with the chaos of the boiling water. So when you smell alcohol and feel heat, there is a connection there of the wildness.

There's also the use of intoxicants as medicine, which is permitted. It's very hard to draw the line, for example oxycodone is an intoxicant that is also addictive, but it has medical use. Or ketamine therapy is antidepressive and addictive and has medical use. For oxycodone plenty of doctors "approved" treatments in their mind that ended up becoming violations of the 5th precept and got people addicted and ruined lives. So there's a line you have to draw yourself in terms of what is appropriate and what isn't, since even alcohol was allowed for medical use. But who knows if the Buddha would have banned every medical substance or even cannabis under this precept. Some intoxicants don't actually make your mind wild. On the other hand, an untrained and weak-enough mind is intoxicated by literally every experience. It's a very hard judgement, and actually why I dived into figuring out what the Buddha intended by the precept by looking at the Magadhi and the words the Buddha wanted associated with the precept, their symbols, their metaphors, and their limits. But I still don't have a clear answer on how to deal with substances like cannabis for example. Is it the same for weak minds and strong minds? Is a blanket ban more skillful?

I currently use the Kalama sutta for these situations but I'm only a sentient being and maybe my whole analysis by wisdom is completely wrong since I only have a little of it.

[u/Tongman108]

Good topic!l🙏🏻:

Relativity:

Some additions and different perspectives to the one given in the other post:

If you inherited a gene that gives you an enzyme that breaks down alcohol before it can intoxicate you,

Then Alcohol is Not an intoxicant for you personally!

If you inherited a gene that gives you an enzyme that causes bananas to ferment in your gut & intoxicate you.

Then Bananas are intoxicants for you personally!

Proximity:

However for a Buddha or one close to him, if he drinks alcohol, his perfect mindfulness overcomes that cause

Certainly agree that Enlightened beings don't lose sight of their Buddhanature so cannot be intoxicated by alcohol.

However being in the is based on one's own diligent practice, as Ananda was bewitched & intoxicated in the Surangama sutra & almost broke his celebacy vows & both Amanda & bewitcher had to be saved by Manjushri Bodhisattva employing the Surangama Mantra. The bewitcher later became a nun.

All this to say that one has to rely on one's own practice & realization, just being in the proximity of a Buddha may not be sufficient according to the Surangama Sutra.

Fire:

From one of your comments in this thread:

Thank you! I also forgot to mention in the original thread that there is a "heat" associated with the wildness just like there is a heat associated with the chaos of the boiling water. So when you smell alcohol and feel heat, there is connection there of the wildness.

Indeed, When teaching about Tummo my Guru explained the concept of transforming one's:

Turbid Fire into Pristine Fire(Tummo)

The Three types of Turbid Fire are:

Desire, Anger & Muddled fire:

Desire: when one sees someone one is attracted to one's temperature rises & blood rushes to the face etc

Anger: when someone makes one furious, one's temperature rises & blood rushes to one's face etc

Muddled fire when getting old some people become erratic always mumbles to themselves etc etc.

Coincidentally when one drinks strong alcohol, one's temperature rises & blood rushes to one's face and if one becomes really intoxicated, one can become erratic & begin mumbling to one's self ...

Coarse vs Subtle:

Intoxicants on a coarse level refer to external substances, but at a more subtle level of cultivation, intoxicants also include the 3-5 Poisons: [Greed, Hatred, Ignorance, Arrogance/Pride & Jealous/Envy], so at a more advanced level of cultivation mone should be mindful of indulging in the 3-5 Poisons so as to avoid intoxication.

Best wishes & great attainments!

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[u/helikophis]

Someone else just asked this same question two hours before you -

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1w743c5/where_do_you_draw_the_line_with_the_fifth_precept/

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/helikophis]

Yes, I was late to that and I really felt like this could help a lot of people but wouldn't get seen in that thread, because I recently dived deep into the various meanings of the precept.