Saying someone is on a crusade, presenting irrational and absurd information and then responding with a cartoon emoticon is so very good argumentation. If you are going to direct near-offensive comments at someone and then leave, why post at all for maybe no other reason than simply to be confrontational?daverupa wrote:
Well, sorry to bother y'all.
Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
To clarify, I'm not against coffee nor am I trying to demonize it. I am simply putting forth facts that caffeine is indeed a psychoactive drug of which heedlessness from its affects does occur, and that coffee isn't the benign drink of which it is regarded as.
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
I'm sorry, but drawing an equivalence between caffeine and methamphetamine, besides classifying them both as stimulants, is not correct. I'll break out the textbook to make this clear (my emphasis added):samseva wrote:I did say large doses of caffeine compared to small quantities of methamphetamine.Mkoll wrote:Regarding caffeine vs. methamphetamine...
Sympathomimetic effects, maybe. But the psychotropic effects (on mood, perception, consciousness) are not the same. Their respective pharmacologies are completely different. Caffeine also doesn't cause measurable brain damage with long-term use, unlike methamphetamine.
Regarding caffeine vs. cocaine...
Same points as with methamphetamine except for the brain damage. But long-term use of cocaine has its own problems.
Regarding the pharmacological similarities with caffeine and methamphetamine, both largely affect dopamine (same for cocaine) and other monoamines mecanisms of the brain. Also, with increased energy, norepinephrine also naturally kicks in, which methamphetamine does chemically. Although I do agree with the neurotoxic properties of methamphetamine, of which caffeine has almost none. All that apart, they are both classified as stimulants, so even if a drug acts primarily on epinephrine mechanisms, while another acts on norepinephrine and another acts on some other similar neurotransmitter, the effect will be very similar.
The paragraph continues and ends with talking about cAMP and phosphodiesterase inhibition.[i]Psychopharmacology[/i] by Meyer and Quenzer (2013), p. 397 wrote:Mechanisms of Action
Although the mechanism by which caffeine exerts its stimulant effects is not yet completely understood, substantial progress has been made over the past 25 to 30 years. It is clear that caffeine does not directly influence catecholamine systems in the manner of the psychomotor stimulants amphetamine and cocaine. When the biochemistry of the second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) was first being studied, investigators discovered that caffeine and theophylline are inhibitors of cAMP phosphodiesterase, the enzyme that breaks down cAMP.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
Fair enough, but for the psychophysiological effects of these three drugs, they do have overlapping similarities—especially those typical of lots of stimulants. Furthermore, my comparison was with a large dose of caffeine compared to a small quantity of methamphetamine (double the difference, not huge and normal, but huge and small). You both seem to have skipped that part to then ramble on about how the comparison makes no sense and is absurd.Mkoll wrote:I'm sorry, but drawing an equivalence between caffeine and methamphetamine, besides classifying them both as stimulants, is not correct. I'll break out the textbook to make this clear (my emphasis added):
The paragraph continues and ends with talking about cAMP and phosphodiesterase inhibition.[i]Psychopharmacology[/i] by Meyer and Quenzer (2013), p. 397 wrote:Mechanisms of Action
Although the mechanism by which caffeine exerts its stimulant effects is not yet completely understood, substantial progress has been made over the past 25 to 30 years. It is clear that caffeine does not directly influence catecholamine systems in the manner of the psychomotor stimulants amphetamine and cocaine. When the biochemistry of the second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) was first being studied, investigators discovered that caffeine and theophylline are inhibitors of cAMP phosphodiesterase, the enzyme that breaks down cAMP.
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
You ever used a large dose of caffeine or a small dose of methamphetamine? They're not the same, trust me. I didn't say it before, but I will now that you've put words in my mouth: your comparison is absurd and makes no sense (beyond the general similarities I've already mentioned).samseva wrote:Fair enough, but for the psychophysiological effects of these three drugs, they do have overlapping similarities—especially those typical of lots of stimulants. Furthermore, my comparison was with a large dose of caffeine compared to a small quantity of methamphetamine (double the difference, not huge and normal, but huge and small). You both seem to have skipped that part to then ramble on about how the comparison makes no sense and is absurd.Mkoll wrote:I'm sorry, but drawing an equivalence between caffeine and methamphetamine, besides classifying them both as stimulants, is not correct. I'll break out the textbook to make this clear (my emphasis added):
The paragraph continues and ends with talking about cAMP and phosphodiesterase inhibition.[i]Psychopharmacology[/i] by Meyer and Quenzer (2013), p. 397 wrote:Mechanisms of Action
Although the mechanism by which caffeine exerts its stimulant effects is not yet completely understood, substantial progress has been made over the past 25 to 30 years. It is clear that caffeine does not directly influence catecholamine systems in the manner of the psychomotor stimulants amphetamine and cocaine. When the biochemistry of the second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) was first being studied, investigators discovered that caffeine and theophylline are inhibitors of cAMP phosphodiesterase, the enzyme that breaks down cAMP.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
Sure, stimulants, no matter the difference in doses, are all completely different in every single way and comparing them makes no sense; this is all absurd.
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
You aren't making a good case against coffee vis-a-vis the precept; your comparisons are way off the mark; and so yes, this sort of loose gunslinger use of skewed 'facts' is altogether crusade-like (for example, you tried to compare the coca leaf to coffee as though somehow cocaine and coffee are closely related).samseva wrote:Saying someone is on a crusade, presenting irrational and absurd information and then responding with a cartoon emoticon is so very good argumentation. If you are going to direct near-offensive comments at someone and then leave, why post at all for maybe no other reason than simply to be confrontational?daverupa wrote:
Well, sorry to bother y'all.
This isn't confrontational, this is descriptive.
Caffeine isn't a drink... but you're still way off the deep end.samseva wrote:...caffeine is far from the benign drink it is regarded as.
Find coffee/a caffeine derivative on this comparative chart:
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
in Oregon in the late 70s..in southern oregon anyway...there were espresso sidewalk push carts popping up....i remember visiting and being told by someone that the "young people" were all on the espresso bandwagon at that time...weekend late nite fun....versus getting altered in some other way....this person said that there was a "legal limit" as to how many shots of espresso could be bought/had at that time....5 or so ....
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
There's tabacco in your Wikipedia graph, right next to amphetamines. For caffeine, an incomplete chart isn't a valid argument, which is basically the only one you've put forth so far, other than just labelling me and what I posted.daverupa wrote:...
With all of the reasoning with caffeine, I am guessing nicotine isn't against the precept as well? What about other similar drugs? A bit of beer doesn't cause heedlessness, so isn't that perfectly okay and in line with the fifth precept?
Fact is, caffeine is a drug and a stimulant. Regular and heavy drinkers of coffee, by definition, develop a need for caffeine to feel normal, i.e, not sluggish, irrated and drowsy like a normal healthy individual would be. It also causes heedlessness in medium to large doses, not necessarrily smashing windows in a drug-induced craze, but does such things as what I've mentioned in one of my previous posts.
Whether caffeine is or isn't against the precept is up to individual opinion. If it isn't, it is definitely in the dark grey area. I'll quote one my last posts, which you seem to have missed as well:
Now, I have more important things to do than to argue. I also think I've presented sufficient arguments to counter that caffeine isn't a mircle not-really-a drug substance, which is in large part what it is usually purported as being.samseva wrote:To clarify, I'm not against coffee nor am I trying to demonize it. I am simply putting forth facts that caffeine is indeed a psychoactive drug of which heedlessness from its affects does occur, and that coffee isn't the benign drink of which it is regarded as.
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
And, tobacco isn't against the precept. Notice that "heedlessness" isn't on that graph anywhere. The point is that the term psychoactive - which you've been focused on - is too broad.samseva wrote:There's tabacco in your Wikipedia graph, right next to amphetamines.daverupa wrote:...
Yup. It doesn't take much alcohol, but a small amount that doesn't cause heedlessness isn't a substance that causes heedlessness in that case, so the precept is not breached. It's very simple.A bit of beer doesn't cause heedlessness, so isn't that perfectly okay and in line with the fifth precept?
No, it's quite clear that heedlessness is a factor, and mere opinion doesn't change this.Whether caffeine is or isn't against the precept is up to individual opinion.
You have not demonstrated this.I am simply putting forth facts that caffeine is indeed a psychoactive drug of which heedlessness from its affects does occur
This is a strawman argument against a position no one has argued for here, and isn't related to heedlessness or the precepts at all.I also think I've presented sufficient arguments to counter that caffeine isn't a mircle not-really-a drug substance, which is in large part what it is usually purported as being.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
That is a fact, yes.samseva wrote:Fact is, caffeine is a drug and a stimulant.
That's called drug dependence and yes, it does occur with caffeine for most people. Caffeine is also subject to drug tolerance. But what does that have to do with heedlessness?samseva wrote:Regular and heavy drinkers of coffee, by definition, develop a need for caffeine to feel normal, i.e, not sluggish, irrated and drowsy like a normal healthy individual would be.
AFAICT, you haven't even defined heedlessness in this thread.samseva wrote:It also causes heedlessness in medium to large doses, not necessarrily smashing windows in a drug-induced craze, but does such things as what I've mentioned in one of my previous posts.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
Good. So drugs are okay? Drugs don't go against the precept not a single bit? Substances that chemically and negatively affect one's mind are completely fine?Mkoll wrote:That is a fact, yes.samseva wrote:Fact is, caffeine is a drug and a stimulant.
The teachings are completely centered around craving, clinging and the resulting suffering these two things cause. It is the fact that regular and heavy coffee drinkers cling to (i.e., dependent on), and probably crave, a substance—and especially that they are dependent on a substance to chemically induce and maintain a certain state of mind. While caffeine isn't against the precept per se, it does go against the teachings pretty much as a whole. "Relinquish and don't cling to anything, but being dependent on a substance to chemically induce and maintain a normal and sufficiently wakeful state of mind is fine." just doesn't make sense.Mkoll wrote:That's called drug dependence and yes, it does occur with caffeine for most people. Caffeine is also subject to drug tolerance. But what does that have to do with heedlessness?
It isn't for me to define it and it should be widely known, since it is quite a common topic in the Suttas. For clarity's sake, the 5th precept, in Pāḷi, is this:Mkoll wrote:AFAICT, you haven't even defined heedlessness in this thread.
Heedlessness in this precept is from the word pamāda, which, according to the PTS Dictionary, is translated as: carelessness, negligence, indolence, remissness.surāmeraya-majja-ppamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
The New Oxford English Dictionary defines these words as:
While someone who has taken a medium to large amount of a stimulant is probably the complete opposite of indolent, other parts of what would be considered heedlessness do apply.carelessness
failure to give sufficient attention to avoiding harm or errors; negligence
negligence
failure to take proper care in doing something
indolence
avoidance of activity or exertion; laziness
remissness
lacking care or attention to duty; negligent:
However, from the Suttas, it is much more easy to get a better and general understanding of what is inferred by heedlessness. In Buddhist terms, heedlessness is regarding things like lacking mindfulness, clear comprehension and wise attention; letting the unarisen defilements arise and increasing the already arisen defilements; doing and maintaining what is unwholesome and especially the arising of the hindrances, such as restlessness—of which caffeine does a good job giving rise to this specific hindrance.
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
samseva wrote:Good. So drugs are okay? Drugs don't go against the precept not a single bit? Substances that affect one's mind are completely fine?Mkoll wrote:That is a fact, yes.samseva wrote:Fact is, caffeine is a drug and a stimulant.
I'm using the pharmacological definition of drug dependence, not the psychological one. One is drug-dependent when there is the appearance of withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of regular use. It has nothing to do with clinging or heedlessness—it's just a physical phenomenon. If you had to take opioids for extreme pain, you could become dependent on them—whether you liked them, disliked them, or didn't care, you could still become dependent on them.samseva wrote:The teachings are completely centered around craving, clinging and the resulting suffering these two things cause. It is the fact that regular and heavy coffee drinkers cling to (i.e., dependent on), and probably crave, a substance—and especially that they are dependent on a substance to chemically induce and maintain a certain state of mind. While caffeine isn't against the precept per se, it does go against the teachings pretty much as a whole. "Relinquish and don't cling to anything, but being dependent on a substance to chemically induce and maintain a normal and sufficiently wakeful state of mind is fine." just doesn't make sense.Mkoll wrote:That's called drug dependence and yes, it does occur with caffeine for most people. Caffeine is also subject to drug tolerance. But what does that have to do with heedlessness?
Unless someone is a really advanced and diligent practitioner, a lot of things we do go against the teachings as a whole. You just said caffeine doesn't go against the precept. Are you going to make a thread against every activity that doesn't break a precept but "goes against the teachings"? Things like enjoying the company of others, enjoying a walk on the beach, the list goes on forever...
Another thing you are not taking into account is differences between the respective pharmokinetics of individuals due to genetic factors or what have you. Every body is different. People often experience the exact same substance differently.
Another thing you aren't taking into account is the different attitudes individuals may have toward caffeine. Maybe it just isn't as big a deal for some people.
Finally, the "wakeful" or "knowing" state of mind that Buddhist teachers talk about is a way of directing the mind and approaching one's experience. So in that sense, one can be "wakeful" even if drowsy. Ajahn Chah apparently once stayed up 8 days straight without eating. I'm sure his body was more tired than the tiredness of any caffeine withdrawal, but he was "wakeful."
The suttas define heedlessness directly:samseva wrote:It isn't for me to define it and it should be widely known, since it is quite a common topic in the Suttas. For clarity's sake, the 5th precept, in Pāḷi, is this:Mkoll wrote:AFAICT, you haven't even defined heedlessness in this thread.Heedlessness in this precept is from the word pamāda, which, according to the PTS Dictionary, is translated as: carelessness, negligence, indolence, remissness.surāmeraya-majja-ppamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
The New Oxford English Dictionary defines these words as:While someone who has taken a medium to large amount of a stimulant is probably the complete opposite of indolent, other parts of what would be considered heedlessness do apply.carelessness
failure to give sufficient attention to avoiding harm or errors; negligence
negligence
failure to take proper care in doing something
indolence
avoidance of activity or exertion; laziness
remissness
lacking care or attention to duty; negligent:
However, from the Suttas, it is much more easy to get a better general understanding of what is inferred by heedlessness. In Buddhist terms, heedlessness is regarding things like lacking mindfulness, clear comprehension and wise attention; letting the unarisen defilements arise and increasing the already arisen defilements; doing and maintaining what is unwholesome and especially the arising of the hindrances, such as restlessness—which caffeine does a good job giving rise to this specific hindrance.
So it essentially means not restraining the senses.SN 35.97 wrote:"Monks, I will teach you about one who dwells in heedlessness and one who dwells in heedfulness. Listen and pay careful attention, I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And how does one dwell in heedlessness? When a monk dwells without restraint over the faculty of the eye, the mind is stained with forms cognizable via the eye. When the mind is stained, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in suffering. The mind of one who suffers does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena (dhammas) don't become manifest. When phenomena aren't manifest, one is classed simply as one who dwells in heedlessness.
"When a monk dwells without restraint over the ear... nose... tongue... body...
"When a monk dwells without restraint over the faculty of the intellect, the mind is stained with ideas cognizable via the intellect. When the mind is stained, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in suffering. The mind of one who suffers does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena (dhammas) don't become manifest. When phenomena aren't manifest, one is classed simply as one who dwells in heedlessness.
"This is how one dwells in heedlessness.
Does it, for everybody, 100% of the time? Extrapolating your experience to others only goes so far.samseva wrote:doing and maintaining what is unwholesome and especially the arising of the hindrances, such as restlessness—which caffeine does a good job giving rise to this specific hindrance.
~~~
If caffeine messes with you, don't use it! If you think it breaks the precept, don't use it! Simple.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
Your strawman meme is itself a strawman argument. These weren't strawman arguments that I posted, they were questions, which you seem to have tactfully avoided.Mkoll wrote:[Image]samseva wrote:Good. So drugs are okay? Drugs don't go against the precept not a single bit? Substances that affect one's mind are completely fine?
It turns out human beings have psychological mechanisms and we aren’t just molecules and atoms reacting with each other.Mkoll wrote:I'm using the pharmacological definition of drug dependence, not the psychological one. One is drug-dependent when there is the appearance of withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of regular use. It has nothing to do with clinging or heedlessness—it's just a physical phenomenon. If you had to take opioids for extreme pain, you could become dependent on them—whether you liked them, disliked them, or didn't care, you could still become dependent on them.
I didn't mean 'mindful', I meant 'wakeful', as in the very common word and the opposite of 'drowsy'.Mkoll wrote:Finally, the "wakeful" or "knowing" state of mind that Buddhist teachers talk about is a way of directing the mind and approaching one's experience. So in that sense, one can be "wakeful" even if drowsy. Ajahn Chah apparently once stayed up 8 days straight without eating. I'm sure his body was more tired than the tiredness of any caffeine withdrawal, but he was "wakeful."
No, it doesn’t. That is why I have mentioned 'medium to large doses' a significant number of times. Like with most posts from the recent pages, the knee-jerk reactions seems to blur out key parts of opposing posts.Mkoll wrote:Does it, for everybody, 100% of the time?
Re: Coffee, Chocolate and the 5th Precept
I'll restate my position regarding caffeine (and the precept). Caffeine is a drug and a stimulant, I don't think anyone will say the contrary. Although not a sufficient argument at all, just this is enough to make you ask yourself if using something like a drug or a stimulant (for uses other than as medicine) goes in line with the teachings and the precept, or might even go against them. By this I mean: needing a substance to chemically induce or maintain a state of mind and the resulting negative effects a stimulant may present (which could go against the precept). While a milk chocolate bar will probably have no effect on anyone other than a 1-year old child, medium to large quantities (it can't be missed this time) of caffeine do cause negative physical and psychological problems, which in turn or in other words affect the mind and may cause heedlessness.
With that said, do I think consuming some caffeine breaks the precept? Actually, no. I would say it definitely is in the grey zone. Obviously, I would also say that the amount you consume also plays a role. I would think high doses does go against the precept. Also, the intention changes things, at least in the quality of the action, such that a person who eats a chocolate bar simply for food and someone who drinks 3 cups of coffee to get a caffeine boost is not the same.
Now, I have many more important things to do than arguing and going in circles, for basically no good reason at all. I think I've presented more than needed regarding my position and have said all that I wanted to say. For these reasons, I'm off.
Don't drink too much coffee, heavy coffee drinkers! And kick the habit while you can!
With that said, do I think consuming some caffeine breaks the precept? Actually, no. I would say it definitely is in the grey zone. Obviously, I would also say that the amount you consume also plays a role. I would think high doses does go against the precept. Also, the intention changes things, at least in the quality of the action, such that a person who eats a chocolate bar simply for food and someone who drinks 3 cups of coffee to get a caffeine boost is not the same.
Now, I have many more important things to do than arguing and going in circles, for basically no good reason at all. I think I've presented more than needed regarding my position and have said all that I wanted to say. For these reasons, I'm off.
Don't drink too much coffee, heavy coffee drinkers! And kick the habit while you can!