I'm starting to think that an important reason the Buddha offered cut-and-dry rules of behaviour is so we wouldn't waste precious time debating such things in forums
Hold on yo your hat Bhante ,
Monk's don't wear hats, it's against our precepts.
because thats EXACTLY how the 5th precept works for many devout practising lay people who dont exactly go to the local temple and announce the fact.
Really? Then in what EXACT sense are they devout?
Its what makes the 5th different to the other precepts. One cant steal in moderation. One cant kill or lie in moderation.
Why not? Surely sometimes killing ants or mosquitoes won't destroy your chances of enlightenment? Or petty theft or fibs?
One can drink a glass of wine without being unmindful and many lay people do. Both in the west and in the east.
Yes, and you are missing the whole thrust of my argument with this statement.
A member of my household has written before about one of the most impressive lay people we know. He spends a good deal of the year on Vipassana retreats/ He is one of the most calm and compassionate and wise people I know. When he is not on retreat he has a glass of sherry every evening. His is not advocating that, or promoting that. The fact remains that his mindfulness and dedication to all aspects of Dhamma remain exemplary.
If you were a Buddha, your impression of this man would mean something to me... as it is, I can't see how this anecdotal story holds any weight in the argument, unless he happens to be so highly esteemed by the Theravada Buddhist world in general? I'm already negatively inclined towards him for not even being able to keep five basic rules of morality. Why is he drinking sherry again?
Life ain't always black and white.
No, you're right. And for that reason, the next thing we should do is abolish all traffic rules. From now on, as long as you are mindful and alert, everyone is allowed to drive on any side of the road at any speed, without the need for seat belts, traffic lights, or turn signals. Everyone should just use good judgement because, like your friend, they all have it and know exactly what is proper and what improper.
Monks have hundreds of precepts; not to drink alcohol is one of them. I've heard a rumour going around Thailand that monks are allowed to drink two fingers of alcohol. With that as a basis, one monk was arguing with me once, in much the same way as this forum, that this proves that the monastic rules are all about a person exercising their own good judgement, since two fingers in the lid of one's alm's bowl could get one stinking drunk. The problem? The two finger thing is a myth, probably started by monks who like alcohol. Monks can only take alcohol in medicines, etc., when there is no taste, smell or colour of the alcohol present (ie it has evapourated) (Mahāvagga VI.14.1).
Why should one see the fifth precept any different, given that it is perfectly clear from the grammar that one is choosing voluntarily to abstain from the alcohol itself, rather than some vaguely defined state of pamāda? The compound is pamādaṭṭhāna, which means something that is by nature a basis for negligence, and says nothing about the amount of alcohol or level of pamāda (which of course may be present even without drinking) as having anything to do with breaking or keeping the training rule.
One pernicious argument that seems to be going around is that we should not judge people for drinking in moderation, and therefore should ease up on our definition of the precepts. Obviously, the point of precepts is not to condemn others but, as I was trying to point out, such people, as with those who break any precept in moderation, are a bad example to others and a potential danger to themselves, considering how easily moderation becomes intoxication. It also smacks of spiritual laziness; if you can't keep simple precepts like these, how can you ever hope to find the way to free yourself from all suffering?