5 precepts. Alcohol?

[Simon E.]

Au contraire.
I think you need to be careful if you are planning an attainment pissing contest.
This forum has specific things to say about that in its TOS.

"Being aware of the present moment" and still depending on sense objects are mutually exclusive, this is not even limited to buddhadharma. Maybe you need to study a little about samadhi. And alcohol's carcinogenic properties.

But that is not what I wrote. I wrote 'completely present and awake'... which is rather different.

[Simon E.]

Who are talking about a "need" to drink alcohol? One can enjoy things, like food, alcohol, etc. all kinds of various things, without there having to be a "need" for it, without any problems.

Enjoyment is not a problem. Attachment is.

To argue against these things as above, is an attitude found in Hinayana, not Vajrayana.

You don't have to have any of those things for enjoyment if you are always in a blissful state. Why would you?

I don't think anyone mentioned blissful states.
What he was was always completely present in all circumstances. Completely awake and present. Even when quite clearly not in a blissful or even comfortable state.

Here.
And when I wrote awake I meant it literally in the sense that the word is used in Buddhadharma.

[vinegar]

I wrote 'completely present and awake'... which is rather different.

Fair enough.. even so the same argument applies; it is impossible to be present and awake without perfect single-pointedness, and perfect single-pointedness is mutually exclusive to depending on sense objects. Literally the bliss, equanimity, etc, produced by the various absorptions do not depend on sense objects on the contrary the habit for attraction to them impedes those good qualities from arising

[Simon E.]

You are taking your stance from a different Buddhist paradigm. Which is your prerogative.
However, this forum is comprised of views from many Buddhist traditions many of whom have their own schemata.
It is fine and to be expected that you should promote your own sutrayana views.
However. it will be problematic if you insist on promoting them by dismissing the views of those traditions which are not of the sutrayana.

[Malcolm]

I wrote 'completely present and awake'... which is rather different.

Fair enough.. even so the same argument applies; it is impossible to be present and awake without perfect single-pointedness, and perfect single-pointedness is mutually exclusive to depending on sense objects. Literally the bliss, equanimity, etc, produced by the various absorptions do not depend on sense objects on the contrary the habit for attraction to them impedes those good qualities from arising

Only from a sūtrayāna, aka path of renunciation, presentation of one-pointedness.

This also ignores the fact that one-pointedness is a mental factor present in all minds, the difference between your one pointed samadhi and the one pointed attention of a cat on a mouse is solely the motivation driving it.

[vinegar]

You are taking your stance from a different Buddhist paradigm.

It applies to all buddhist traditions--which do you think it does not apply to?

This also ignores the fact that one-pointedness is a mental factor present in all minds, the difference between your one pointed samadhi and the one pointed attention of a cat on a mouse is solely the motivation driving it.

I'm speaking about practitioners with perfect samadhi or close to it (7th stage, 8th stage), not the samadhi that all minds have

Vajrayana accepts Sutrayana's general explanation, the only real difference being that Vajrayana makes the unique assertion of being able to attain various paths using only perfect samadhi or near-perfect samadhi of the desire realm.

This means without the generation of any form realm mental factors, meaning desire to sense object is severely controlled but not altogether understood as being very coarse and not without attachment to them being defeated

[Simon E.]

OK, there is no point in carrying on this discussion. Be well.

[Malcolm]

You are taking your stance from a different Buddhist paradigm.

It applies to all buddhist traditions--which do you think it does not apply to?

No, this is false. For example, it is impermissible for a śravaka bhikṣu to handle gold; but is permissible for a mahāyāna bhikṣu to do so. Likewise, it is permissible for Vajrayāna pracititioners to eat meat and drink alchohol, where it is impermissible in lower yānas.

This also ignores the fact that one-pointedness is a mental factor present in all minds, the difference between your one pointed samadhi and the one pointed attention of a cat on a mouse is solely the motivation driving it.

I'm speaking about practitioners with perfect samadhi or close to it (7th stage, 8th stage), not the samadhi that all minds have

You are referring to the nine stages of placement? In this case, there is no difference, as I noted.

Vajrayana accepts Sutrayana's general explanation, the only real difference being that Vajrayana makes the unique assertion of being able to attain various paths using only perfect samadhi or near-perfect samadhi of the desire realm.

This is a strange tenet, from where or whom is it derived?

This means without the generation of any form realm mental factors, meaning desire to sense object is severely controlled but not altogether understood as being very coarse and not without attachment to them being defeated

This is completely false.

[vinegar]

You are taking your stance from a different Buddhist paradigm.

It applies to all buddhist traditions--which do you think it does not apply to?

No, this is false. For example, it is impermissible for a śravaka bhikṣu to handle gold; but is permissible for a mahāyāna bhikṣu to do so. Likewise, it is permissible for Vajrayāna pracititioners to eat meat and drink alchohol, where it is impermissible in lower yānas.

The pratimoksha vows are the basis for bodhisattva vows, both of which are the basis for tantra vows.

For example, the monks vow of not handling gold/money is to not do so out of desire. The difference arises in the explanation of what desire means. The tantra vows are subtler than the bodhisattva vows, and they are both subtler than pratimoksha vows, so the explanation of desire will be increasingly subtler.

Like this a situation can arise that a monk might still be captivated by desire for gold/money, yet it is more ethical to handle it with desire if they intend to serve someone with it. The implication of this is not that "it is permissible for a mahāyāna bhikṣu to do so", nor that is it that monks without bodhisattva vows can never handle it

Vajrayana accepts Sutrayana's general explanation, the only real difference being that Vajrayana makes the unique assertion of being able to attain various paths using only perfect samadhi or near-perfect samadhi of the desire realm.

This is a strange tenet, from where or whom is it derived?

My understanding is that the only way completion stage practitioners can make use of consorts to dissolve winds pertaining to the skin is by purposefully ceasing all formless realm and form realm mental factors (meaning excluding shamata as well), in order to be able to generate desire realm desire. I remember berzinarchives stating this explicitly and I'm not sure enough to say whether it is one of HHDL books

This means without the generation of any form realm mental factors, meaning desire to sense object is severely controlled but not altogether understood as being very coarse and not without attachment to them being defeated

This is completely false.

I mean, desire realm sense objects

[Simon E.]

You are attempting to hammer one Buddhist paradigm into the template of another.
This may serve some purpose for you, but is tedious to witness.
I'm out.
Be well.

[boda]

There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Alcohol is useful as an anesthetic however, but I'm unaware of any tradition that actively practices aversion to pain or discomfort as a viable method. That would indeed constitute a paradigm shift.

[Malcolm]

There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.

[boda]

There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.

You misunderstand. As you say, drinking may be "permissible" in Vajrayāna, but permissible does not mean non-toxic.

Does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path?

[Malcolm]

There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.

You misunderstand. As you say, drinking may be "permissible" in Vajrayāna, but permissible does not mean non-toxic.

Does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path?

It means that Vajrayāna understand that immunity to some toxins can be developed by consuming small quantities of them.

[Simon E.]

In a sense samsara is toxic. Picking and choosing between levels of toxicity within samsara is splitting hairs.

[boda]

Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.

You misunderstand. As you say, drinking may be "permissible" in Vajrayāna, but permissible does not mean non-toxic.

Does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path?

It means that Vajrayāna understand that immunity to some toxins can be developed by consuming small quantities of them.

Homeopathy? In any case, we are specifically discussing alcohol. Anyone living has a liver which detoxifies alcohol, effectively making them immune to small quantities. Your point appears to be rather dull.

[boda]

In a sense samsara is toxic. Picking and choosing between levels of toxicity within samsara is splitting hairs.

I can't help imagining you in an emergency room with doctor trying to determine which toxin to treat you for, after an accidental poisoning, and you saying something like, "Oh good grief doctor, stop splitting hairs. I was poisoned by samsara!"

Kidding aside, besides it's toxicity the other significant quality it has in human consumption is as an anesthetic. So I ask for the third time, does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path? That would constitute a different paradigm, as you've claimed.

[Malcolm]

Your point appears to be rather dull.

So is vehemently insisting that all Buddhists must desist from a glass (or two) of wine with dinner.

Frankly, booze back in the day was pretty awful stuff. We have managed to improve it in terms of flavor etc., quite a bit in 2500 years.

[Malcolm]

So I ask for the third time, does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path? That would constitute a different paradigm, as you've claimed.

It is not the anesthetic quality that is valued in Vajrayāna, but rather the conviviality that accompanies its consumption in small quantities.

[boda]

Your point appears to be rather dull.

So is vehemently insisting that all Buddhists must desist from a glass (or two) of wine with dinner.

Frankly, booze back in the day was pretty awful stuff. We have managed to improve it in terms of flavor etc., quite a bit in 2500 years.

Personally, I've merely stated that it's a training rule for good reason.