This concise discourse clearly indicates that in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism intoxicants have been discouraged. It also points to the fact that moral restraint has been interwoven into all religious teachings.
( July 17, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In the timeline of Eastern Dharmic religions and religious reformers Hinduism preceded Buddhism. Therefore, the basic moral restraints on one’s conduct as taught in Buddhism were in existence long before the time of the Buddha. What evolved was a continuation of these basic principles from the Brahmanical tradition. The five lay precepts in Buddhism is one such phenomenon. In Hinduism warnings on alcohol abuse were included in some of the earliest known texts such as the Rigveda [8:2:12 and 8:21:14-15]. Also, the following admonitions are given in the other Hindu scriptures.
“Killing a Brahmana, drinking (the spirituous liquor called) Sura, stealing (the gold of a Brahmana), adultery with a Guru’s wife, and associating with such (offenders), they declare (to be) mortal sins (mahapataka)”. (Manu Smriti: 11:55).
However, whereas in earlier traditions the moral code was usually couched in quite specific terms, sometimes reflecting the caste system, these basic Buddhist precepts were universal, stated independently of social context. (Paul Trafford, Avoiding pamāda: An analysis of the Fifth Precept..)
Speaking about the five moral restraint as ‘gifts’ Buddha signifies the origins of these ‘gifts’ as preceding him. He clearly refers to these as long standing, traditional and ancient. Thus, providing evidence to this position. It begins as follows:
“Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and brahmans”.
Anguttara Nikaya
In the Anguttara Nikaya 8.39, the fifth precept in the Abhisanda Sutta states:
“Idha bhikkhave, ariyasāvako surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānaṃ …. “
(Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble one abstains from taking intoxicants.)
In the Five Precepts (pañca-sila), the fifth precept is:
“Suramerayamajja pamadatthana ……veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami”
(I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.)
This precept or ethical conduct (Sila) seeks perfection in the conduct of man. The path to perfection is sought through abstinence (veramani). It also guides man towards perfection of knowledge or insight panna or pragna, which are essential elements in the pursuit of nirvāṇa. If the mind is befogged with fermented liquor (sura) and spirits (meraya) such person will not be able to perfect his wisdom.
An interesting comparison is seen in the Quran:
“They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: “In both is great sin, and some benefit, for men; but the sin is greater than the benefit.”
(Chapter 2 Verse 219).
If a Muslim imbibes intoxicants, he will be committing a sinful act (akusala). This akusala is prohibited and in Islam the prohibition is called ‘Haram’. A Muslim who observes the rule of Haram is in fact observing what in Buddhism is called, ‘Sila’ that is perfecting his conduct by an act of virtue or by abstaining from doing a sinful deed (akusal kamma). Islam has enjoined the rule of prohibition in relation to intoxicant with a purpose. Among other things, to protect man from things which are extremely harmful to him, his family, his relations and friends and the society at large. This protection is extended both to the physical and spiritual dispositions of man.
From a Buddhist perspective, the evils of intoxicants are explained in the above Sutta. It states: “Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble one abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings …”.
Halal and Haram
Halal is an Arabic word which means, ‘lawful, allowable, permissible’. Haram which is also an Arabic word means, ‘unlawful, not allowed, not permitted’. The understanding and usage of these words in addition, to their application are very necessary in the life of a Muslim. It will decide between an act being sinful (akusala) or meritorious (kusala). For example, the Quran states that taking intoxicants is a sin (ibid), therefore, it is categorised as ‘Haram’.
Drinking of fruit juice is allowed (halal) in Islam. In Buddhism, too, there is no rule (sikkhapada) to abstain (veramani) or to observe ethical conduct (sila) with regard to drinking of fruit juice. So, both in Islam and Buddhism drinking of fruit juice is allowed. This permission given in Islam, in Arabic is called, ‘halal’. It is halal even according to Buddhism since there is no restraint on drinking of fruit juice. The difference is only in the terminology. The link word for both Islam and Buddhism is, ‘allowed or permitted’. For those who have an ‘allergy’ to the Arabic term halal, the word ‘avasara’ (permissible) in the Sinhala language will be helpful.
According to the rules of Islam, what is permissible (Halal) at one time can become prohibited (Haram) at another time. An example of such a condition is where the composition of a permissible drink is changed. If the fruit juice mentioned above is mixed with alcohol, it will not be halal anymore to drink that juice. The reason being the introduction of a prohibited element (alcohol) into that juice. In fact, even in Buddhism to drink this juice which is mixed with alcohol will be against the rule (sikkhapada) of the fifth precept. Some may take the view that the quantity of alcohol mixed is insignificant. Is it allowed in Buddhism to ignore something just because it is petty, little or insignificant? The buddha’s teachings indicate otherwise. Reference to the Paniya Jataka provides valuable instructions:
“Brethren, there is no such thing as a petty sin (kileso khuddako). A Brother must check all sins as they each arise. Wise men of old, before the Buddha came, subdued their sins and attained to the knowledge of a Pacceka-Buddha.”
(No. 459 (Paniya Jataka).
Sukara and Pamāda
Another example is in relation to the state of mind of a person under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. The Quran specifically states not to approach prayer with a mind befogged (sukara). It also conditions this statement by instructing that you should know what you are saying. An inebriated or drugged person obviously will not be in a position to form clear ideas and also incapable of appreciating whatever he is saying.
“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are sukara (mind befogged, intoxicated) until you know what you are saying ……”
(Quran: Chapter 4 Verse 43).
The term ‘pamādaṭṭhāna’ mentioned in the fifth precept in the Abhisanda Sutta has relevance here. There are two words, ‘pamāda’ and ‘thana’. The basics meanings particularly pertinent here are: heedlessness or carelessness, connoting inattention; Also, indolence, connoting sloth and lack of effort in performance. The word ‘pamada’ in Pali is equivalent to the Arabic word in the Quran, ‘sukara’.
As a matter of comparative interest, the Bible too has some references discouraging intoxicants.
“Wine is a mocker; strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise”. (Proverbs 20:1).
“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.”
Ephesians 5:18;
This concise discourse clearly indicates that in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism intoxicants have been discouraged. It also points to the fact that moral restraint has been interwoven into all religious teachings. If all men and women can at least agree to appreciate the common goodness that is taught in all religions, we will be able to live peacefully, respecting each other without hatred and violence.
2018-07-17
