It's not a fridge, it's an Esky.*Fede wrote: Picky picky....
What man in the desert is dragging a fridge around with him?
And the man, of course, is an Aussie.
Kim
* Esky:
It's not a fridge, it's an Esky.*Fede wrote: Picky picky....
What man in the desert is dragging a fridge around with him?
Because his water filter has no attachments?Jhana4 wrote:That sounds like a great lead in to a good joke, now we just have to come up with the punch line.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:I have to ask, "Why would a Buddhist have beer in the fridge at all?"
Stefan, that seems like a bit of a silly question. The Buddha didn't teach the precepts to drive you to suicide by following them. The better question is "it is allowable to drink alchol in certain occasions, carefully, just a little, with mindfulness?" and the answer yes, it's allowable, if you consider allowable to be what what harmful behaviour you will allow greed, ignorance, laziness and other mental factors to drive you to do.Stefan wrote:If you are thirsty but there's nothing in the fridge except beer, and tap water is undrinkable, would alcohol be allowed in that case?
My understanding is that the medicinal exceptions for alcohol use in the vinaya are specific to a certain class of diseases rooted in disturbed vāyus (winds). According to this type of proto-āyurvedic medical theory, vāyu has certain properties that alcohol can serve as an antidote to. There was no distillation of alcohol in the Buddha's time and the medicinal alcohols would have been about 2% alcohol (as they still are in many traditional Indian medicinal alcohols).retrofuturist wrote:I agree, but they only lead to intoxication in certain volumes... hence presumably why medicinal uses of alcohol in accordance with the Vinaya are permissible for bhikkhus. From that I think it's clear it's not a case of absolutes.
Ay, but therein lies the rub. The effects of alcohol on the brain are not all-or-nothing. One may only notice intoxication after a certain threshold is reached, but the effects of alcohol on the nervous system (& rest of the body) are graded. So even a little alcohol could produce effects on decision-making (i.e. heedfulness) emotions, and behavior. There's no clear line where it either has/doesn't have an effect.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings bhante,I agree, but they only lead to intoxication in certain volumes... hence presumably why medicinal uses of alcohol in accordance with the Vinaya are permissible for bhikkhus. From that I think it's clear it's not a case of absolutes.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The precept as worded is an undertaking to abstain from intoxicants that lead to heedlessness, not an undertaking to abstain from becoming intoxicated.
Metta,
Retro.
Medicines that contain alcohol are allowable, under strict conditions.retrofuturist wrote:I agree, but they only lead to intoxication in certain volumes... hence presumably why medicinal uses of alcohol in accordance with the Vinaya are permissible for bhikkhus. From that I think it's clear it's not a case of absolutes.
It would be well to read the whole Vinaya Rulehe Mahāvagga (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for use only as long as the taste, color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible.
If he does not know that it is alcohol, it is still an offence.Effort. The Vibhaṅga defines drinking as taking even as little as the tip of a blade of grass. Thus taking a small glass of wine, even though it might not be enough to make one drunk, would be more than enough to fulfill this factor.
I would appreciate clarification on this point as it seems to be at odds with my own understanding. If there is no intention to break the sila, then where is the wrong-doing? Certainly if one encourages others to drink or speaks in praise of drinking, then I can see the wrong doing. But if one is oblivious to the fact that whatever he or she is drinking contains alcohol, and only discovers it later, then where is the wrong doing in that?Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:If he does not know that it is alcohol, it is still an offence.
What if a man meets a woman, who says she's unattached, and sleeps with her, but she is married, where is the wrong-doing? Or, if one receives stolen goods not knowing that they're not stolen. Or if a monk eats after midday, not knowing what time it is.Ben wrote:I would appreciate clarification on this point as it seems to be at odds with my own understanding. If there is no intention to break the sila, then where is the wrong-doing?
A lot of Buddhist morality seems tied to this sort of approach, especially Vinaya origin stories which have upset laypeople as the source of a rule. Comportment is very important if donated necessities are one's livelihood - and, for a layperson who may or may not be seen as a representative of the Sangha, comportment will matter to greater or lesser degrees depending on whether or not the Dhamma will be disparaged via a perceived moral laxity.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Either way, if one doesn't check, and others see what one has done, they will blame us anyway. So take care.
Breach of the third precept, in my humble opinion, regardless of whether she is married or not. But if he knew that the woman was married then it is weightier.What if a man meets a woman, who says she's unattached, and sleeps with her, but she is married, where is the wrong-doing?
Certainly guilty of taking that which is not freely given if the receiver knew the goods were stolen. If however, he did not know, I don't see how the precept is broken.Or, if one receives stolen goods not knowing that they're not stolen.
Then surely he is only guilty of not knowing what time it is. Incidentally, what do monks do at mealtimes when they are in-flight and crossing multiple time-zones?Or if a monk eats after midday, not knowing what time it is.
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. I'm not talking of a situation of a lazy person or someone who takes advantage of a situation where alcohol could be served by someone who doesn't know one has taken the fifth precept. Perhaps the blame in many situations is the result of the defilements in the other person's mind rather than anything to do with our one's own behaviour. I thought the consideration of blame is when it arises in the mind of the 'wise'.Isn't there a duty of care to check about such things? Either way, if one doesn't check, and others see what one has done, they will blame us anyway.
Thank you. I do to the very best of my ability. And I wish you well too.So take care