The Fifth Precept

[camerata]

Another take on the 5th precept excerpted from Phra Cittasamvaro's blog:

---

At some point every meditator has to consider the fifth precept – refraining from alcohol and drugs.

There are some misconceptions about this rule; around the issue of what constitutes a ‘drug’. We have references in the scriptures, but the five precepts appears to predate Buddhism, and was followed on observance days (every 7 or 8 days depending on the lunar calendar). The Pali actually refers to fermented drink and distilled fermentations, and the reason given for abstinence is because it makes you lose self-control. In one story someone under the influence kills his parents. In another story the Bhikkhu Sagata, who was well known for his high attainments which enabled him to battle with demons and nagas, was encouraged to drink something called “pigeon’s liqour”. He passed out by the city gates while on almsround and was taken to the Buddha, who asked the monks,

And didn’t Sagata once do battle with the fearsome Ambatittha Naga?

Could he even do battle with a Salamander now?

Thus it became a rule for monks to refrain from drink, which has six unwholesome qualities:

1. It is a waste of money.

2. It often leads to quarrels.

3. It is harmful to one’s health.

4. It is a source of disgrace.

5. It leads to impudent actions.

6. It weakens a person’s power of discernment

Thus smoking tobacco, caffeine and other mild stimulants, however addictive, are not included in this precept. They may be unwholesome behaviour, that is another question, but they do not belong under this precept which refers to fermented drinks, and drugs that make you lose self control. No one has ever killed their parents due to excess caffeine.

[fabianfred]

I think recently some Thai monks have taken to include smoking in the fifth precept just because it has been decided by the Government to forbid smoking in temples ...and to try and improve the health of Thai monks.

When my students ask me about having to stop drinking if keeping the five precepts I say...well its OK to have a glass of wine or two with a meal.... and I allow myself a glass of shandy (small beer and sprite or 7-up mixed) on a very hot day.... as long as we are sure we will not start to slide down the slippery slope to drunkenness.

If we break the first four precepts then we will have caused suffering to another being....but the fifth is for ourselves...to prevent us breaking the first four whilst under the influence.

The peak of the Dhamma is mindfulness.....and being under the influence is a loss of mindfulness.

[phetaroi]

I think recently some Thai monks have taken to include smoking in the fifth precept just because it has been decided by the Government to forbid smoking in temples ...and to try and improve the health of Thai monks.

When my students ask me about having to stop drinking if keeping the five precepts I say...well its OK to have a glass of wine or two with a meal.... and I allow myself a glass of shandy (small beer and sprite or 7-up mixed) on a very hot day.... as long as we are sure we will not start to slide down the slippery slope to drunkenness.

If we break the first four precepts then we will have caused suffering to another being....but the fifth is for ourselves...to prevent us breaking the first four whilst under the influence.

The peak of the Dhamma is mindfulness.....and being under the influence is a loss of mindfulness.

I think you make a valid point.

The problem is that I have rarely met a person who is "into drinking" that thinks he is on the slippery slope, although he may have actually already slid down it. There was a lot of alcoholism in my family when I was growing up, and I long ago came to the conclusion that one who "drinks" will never see the point of view of those who don't. It's way beyond looking at the world through rose colored glasses...in this case the "glasses" are totally fogged over.

I can see a priest who knows a parishioner sitting one down and saying, "John, as your family priest...." I don't imagine monks ever do such a thing. And -- and I'm no expert on this -- I don't see anything in Thailand that helps someone put the brakes on once they are heading in that direction. Or, am I wrong?

[Sarathi]

Curious point. Most drinkers do not see it as a problem. But most smokers generally admit that it is a bad habit, and one to quit.

Smoking would fit with points 1) and 3) above, but nonetheless is not really against the 5th precept of refraining from intoxicants ... even if we can all now agree it is not a very 'good' action.

[rockyysdt]

<br />I think recently some Thai monks have taken to include smoking in the fifth precept just because it has been decided by the Government to forbid smoking in temples ...and to try and improve the health of Thai monks.<br />When my students ask me about having to stop drinking if keeping the five precepts I say...well its OK to have a glass of wine or two with a meal.... and I allow myself a glass of shandy (small beer and sprite or 7-up mixed) on a very hot day.... as long as we are sure we will not start to slide down the slippery slope to drunkenness.<br />If we break the first four precepts then we will have caused suffering to another being....but the fifth is for ourselves...to prevent us breaking the first four whilst under the influence.<br />The peak of the Dhamma is mindfulness.....and being under the influence is a loss of mindfulness.<br />

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />Hi FF.<br /><br />I thought of a situation where ones drinking can cause suffering or influence others.<br /><br />I was introduced to a monk who was known in the village as the drinking monk.<br /><br />He was partial to drinking whiskey, &amp; rather than spending time in single pointed concentration, often enjoyed a tipple to while away an afternoon.<br /><br />His actions, if observed by others can attract disrespect &amp; cause them to dismiss the monkhood as a worthwhile path.<br /><br />Whilst observing myself in the presence of this monk, l noticed my ego viewing him with disrespect. l naturally then resolved to not become attached.<br /><br />Many might become latch onto to such things &amp; become firmly attached.<br /><br /> Edited March 30, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I'm surprised that the Buddha was remiss in fully capturing the spirit of the fifth precept.

How could they have got it so wrong by only referring to alcohol when drugs, tobacco & caffeine can affect ones practice?

I'd ask myself, why do we observe precepts?

Although caffeine & nicotine in most cases won't drive one to murder they can have a serious impact on ones ability to practice the eight fold path.

It must be extremely difficult to practice deep single pointed concentration whilst experiencing withdawal symptoms associated with the need for ones next caffeine or nicotine hit.

If food must be consumed prior to midday then a coffee drinker must expereince withdrawal until the following day, something that would affect concentration & mindfulness.

Also damaged lungs from habitual smoking would make it very difficult to breathe freely & focus on the breathe. The lungs are our passport to successful meditation.

If tobacco & alcohol consumption can't be covered by the 5th precept what other precept or Buddhist code could they fall under?

From a rational point of view I can't see a place in Buddhism for smoking or consuming any drug which brings about withdrawal.

[rockyysdt]

I suspect nicoteine withdawal can easily make one lose self control.

It is likened as being a habit harder to overcome than heroine addiction.

Also smokers associate smoking with alcohol & coffee consumption.

A smoker attempting to give up experiences very strong cravings when drinking or having a coffee.

[phetaroi]

I'm surprised that the Buddha was remiss in fully capturing the spirit of the fifth precept.

How could they have got it so wrong by only referring to alcohol when drugs, tobacco & caffeine can affect ones practice?

I'd ask myself, why do we observe precepts?

One of my continuing points in several of my posts has subtly been that we must remember that Siddhartha lived about 2,500 years ago. As I'm sure you'll agree, the point should be that we take his teachings and think of how to apply them to our lives in the modern world. I like to think of the Dhamma as a guide, not a cookbook.

Edited March 30, 2010 by phetaroi

[rockyysdt]

I'm surprised that the Buddha was remiss in fully capturing the spirit of the fifth precept.

How could they have got it so wrong by only referring to alcohol when drugs, tobacco & caffeine can affect ones practice?

I'd ask myself, why do we observe precepts?

One of my continuing points in several of my posts has subtly been that we must remember that Siddhartha lived about 2,500 years ago. As I'm sure you'll agree, the point should be that we take his teachings and think of how to apply them to our lives in the modern world. I like to think of the Dhamma as a guide, not a cookbook.

Unfortunately many also use it as a loop hole.

Why I'm surprised is that once the Buddha became enlightened I would have thought he would have been aware of the issues regardless of time.

[dudemeister]

Curious point. Most drinkers do not see it as a problem. But most smokers generally admit that it is a bad habit, and one to quit.

Smoking would fit with points 1) and 3) above, but nonetheless is not really against the 5th precept of refraining from intoxicants ... even if we can all now agree it is not a very 'good' action.

And, depending on the occassion, - point 4)

[camerata]

I'm surprised that the Buddha was remiss in fully capturing the spirit of the fifth precept.

How could they have got it so wrong by only referring to alcohol when drugs, tobacco & caffeine can affect ones practice?

They didn't have tobacco in the Buddha's India and tea (i.e. containing caffeine) was considered a medicine in ancient times. They smoked something, but somewhere in the Canon the Buddha said it was permissible, so presumably it wasn't considered addictive. The key, really, is to look at the reason for the precept, which was to avoid substances that make you lose control. If you know the reason, it doesn't matter how many years pass or what new drugs are developed - you always know what to do.

Personally, I like the view that the 5 precepts are just a kind of benchmark, which if followed would guarantee that the common folk didn't fall into a hel_l realm. I think that's why they are stated so simply. Anyone who understands the Eightfold Path doesn't need the 5 precepts. You could say they are "Sila for Dummies."

The 5 Precepts don't even appear in the Canon as "The Five Precepts," AFAIK. They appear as "training rules" or something else. According to the scholars, the origin of the precepts were "the four defilements of action," which appear in the Canon without the one on intoxication and then later with it. It seems the 5th was probably added later (according to A.K. Warder). As Fred mentioned, it's a bit different from the first four. It seems a bit obvious to me. I mean, if you know that people are more likely to break the first 4 precepts while under the influence of drugs that reduce inhibitions and awareness, it's a no-brainer that you don't take them.

We have to remember that the Buddha didn't just sit down and write out his whole system. He never put it into any kind of structure. He just kept adding bits and pieces to the basic teachings in response to what he saw around him. The only place I've ever seen the Buddha's teachings (for monks and laity) placed in a formal structure is Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha). Well worth reading, IMO.

[rockyysdt]

They didn't have tobacco in the Buddha's India and tea (i.e. containing caffeine) was considered a medicine in ancient times. They smoked something, but somewhere in the Canon the Buddha said it was permissible, so presumably it wasn't considered addictive. The key, really, is to look at the reason for the precept, which was to avoid substances that make you lose control. If you know the reason, it doesn't matter how many years pass or what new drugs are developed - you always know what to do.

Can it be said that you can lose control when suffering from withdrawal?

For example, through financial or other reason, you can't access enough tobacco to satisfy your craving, then isn't it possible you may lose control. Steal, lie or even harm in order to satisfy your need for more tobacco.

Perhaps smoking might fall under "Right action" (samyak-karmānta) or "right conduct".

One should train oneself to be morally upright in one's activities, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others.

Smoking definitely causes harm.

I mean, if you know that people are more likely to break the first 4 precepts while under the influence of drugs that reduce inhibitions and awareness, it's a no-brainer that you don't take them.

I'm fine with this but when things aren't clearly spelled out many take it as an opportunity to argue or justify, incorrectly or not, their position.

We have to remember that the Buddha didn't just sit down and write out his whole system. He never put it into any kind of structure. He just kept adding bits and pieces to the basic teachings in response to what he saw around him. The only place I've ever seen the Buddha's teachings (for monks and laity) placed in a formal structure is Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha). Well worth reading, IMO.

Thanks C.

Will definitely keep this as a reference to access.

Edited March 31, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

For example, through financial or other reason, you can't access enough tobacco to satisfy your craving, then isn't it possible you may lose control. Steal, lie or even harm in order to satisfy your need for more tobacco.

I've never seen this happen. I guess it's possible, though.

To me, avoiding tobacco is a massive no-brainer anyway. The whole of Buddhism is about reducing craving and yet smoking so obviously creates it. You don't need any precept to tell you that it's bad.

Perhaps some people think the 5 precepts as they stand are aimed at preventing harm to others whereas smoking harms oneself. Still, I have a lot of sympathy for smokers. If you have an addictive personality, it's very difficult to give up, and after giving up you may be tormented for years.

I'm fine with this but when things aren't clearly spelled out many take it as an opportunity to argue or justify, incorrectly or not, their position.

Realistically, how can you spell out all the things that people shouldn't do, now and into the infinite future? People who want to do the right thing will get the spirit of the precepts. The rest will look for loopholes.

[agent69]

For example, through financial or other reason, you can't access enough tobacco to satisfy your craving, then isn't it possible you may lose control. Steal, lie or even harm in order to satisfy your need for more tobacco.

I've never seen this happen. I guess it's possible, though.

If tobacco was made outlaw, it might happen. Most people might quit because either it cost too much or is not worth taking a risk of law breaking. Kids would grow up being taught that smoking was illegal. But there would always be those minority who would try and would go to extra length to satisfy their craving.

Edited April 1, 2010 by agent69

[rockyysdt]

For example, through financial or other reason, you can't access enough tobacco to satisfy your craving, then isn't it possible you may lose control. Steal, lie or even harm in order to satisfy your need for more tobacco.

I've never seen this happen. I guess it's possible, though.

Every time I travel overseas my sister attempts to convince me to bring back duty free tobacco.

Of course, as I try to live a moral life, & not wanting to facilitate her habit, I refuse.

It doesn't stop her from making me feel guilty & pressuring me over time.

She also enlists other travelers to do the same.

Her nicotine addiction causes her to influence others to behave negatively.

[rockyysdt]

To me, avoiding tobacco is a massive no-brainer anyway. The whole of Buddhism is about reducing craving and yet smoking so obviously creates it. You don't need any precept to tell you that it's bad.

Agreed.

Unfortunately the reality is that many do need to be told.

Quote: About a quarter of Thailand's 300,000 Buddhist monks can't kick the habit despite an anti-smoking campaign targeting them, local health authorities say.

It's very sad & reflects on their credibility as Buddhists.

I wonder how many Monks who are smokers have any level of mindfulness and or become enlightened?

Edited April 1, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Quote: About a quarter of Thailand's 300,000 Buddhist monks can't kick the habit despite an anti-smoking campaign targeting them, local health authorities say.

I think you have to remember that the way institutional Buddhism is set up in Thailand, most monks just see it as an easy occupation, albeit one that will earn them a lot of merit. It's Thailand's answer to unemployment benefit. They don't see themselves as true renunciants aiming for nibbana in this life. So smoking or using an MP3 player simply isn't an issue for them. I'm not sure it's much of an issue for the average Thai either.

Nevertheless, wholesome monastics is a major reason why Dhammakaya is so popular with the middle class in Thailand, despite its dubious teachings.

[rockyysdt]

I think you have to remember that the way institutional Buddhism is set up in Thailand, most monks just see it as an easy occupation, albeit one that will earn them a lot of merit. It's Thailand's answer to unemployment benefit. They don't see themselves as true renunciants aiming for nibbana in this life. So smoking or using an MP3 player simply isn't an issue for them. I'm not sure it's much of an issue for the average Thai either.

I suspected as such but never new it was so much in the open.

Would you say, rather than accumulating merit, non renunciants who wear the cloth, to avoid work & responsibility, may actually be earning negative khamma?

Nevertheless, wholesome monastics is a major reason why Dhammakaya is so popular with the middle class in Thailand, despite its dubious teachings.

Why are they considered dubious?

Edited April 1, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

It's very sad & reflects on their credibility as Buddhists.

Would I be being judgmental if I said that was very judgmental?

Did I just break a precept?

Edited April 1, 2010 by phetaroi

[camerata]

Would you say, rather than accumulating merit, non renunciants who wear the cloth, to avoid work & responsibility, may actually be earning negative khamma?

I didn't say they were avoiding work. More like they just see it as a respectable occupation like parish priest - get board and lodging and perform ceremonies for the laity. As for the kamma, it's impossible to say. Speculating that they are making negative kamma would just be us feeling superior.

Why are they considered dubious?

Because they aren't in accord with the Pali Canon. See the previous topics on Dhammakaya.

[rockyysdt]

Did I just break a precept?

No, unless you've been drinking.

1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

2. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.

3. I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.

4. I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.

5. I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

Edited April 1, 2010 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Monk are held to worthy of great respect...as it is difficult to keep the five precepts let alone 227 training rules.

But if they are not keeping the 227 rules strictly then they are cheating the lay people and creating much negative karma for themselves...almost certain to end up in hel_l according to the scriptures.

If they cannot stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen.

Dhammakaya claims their method to be the only way to nirvana....absolute rubbish....

[phetaroi]

Monk are held to worthy of great respect...as it is difficult to keep the five precepts let alone 227 training rules.

But if they are not keeping the 227 rules strictly then they are cheating the lay people and creating much negative karma for themselves...almost certain to end up in hel_l according to the scriptures.

If they cannot stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen.

Dhammakaya claims their method to be the only way to nirvana....absolute rubbish....

I never read the 227 rules until now. OMG.

[fabianfred]

For full review of the 227 rules..Patimokkha...here....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...bmc1.intro.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...bmc2.intro.html