Can a Buddhist drink alcohol in moderation?

[Sam Vara]

I think the question should be seen as asking whether a Buddhist is permitted to drink alcohol, not whether it is a factual possibility.

I think there is nobody giving permissions, one is permitted to even go to hell if one wants, how about that.

Indeed. Perhaps you should try to see the OP in context. I think they were asking whether other people thought it was advisable, or a technical breach of the precept. I don't think it was intended to be about whether someone is able to drink alcohol, nor yet was it about seeking permission. "Can" is a word with a range of meanings, three of which we have now explored in some detail...

[User1249x]

The responses and views expressed itt is what prompted my response rather than the ambiguous OP.

I think it is crystal clear that intending to drink is unwholesome, arranging for drinking is unwholesome, let alone consuming the alcohol.

[Dhammarakkhito]

Can a Devout Buddhist break any of the five precepts?

If the answer is no then surely we are talking about an Arahant or something like that. I can see no other way of answering than yes it can happen that someone who has undertaken the training rules might break them on account of lack of development.

we are or i am actually talking about a sotāpanna, a stream enterer. examine sarakāni sutta closely, he completed the training upon his death. what other training do you envision he completed?

[User1249x]

Can a Devout Buddhist break any of the five precepts?

If the answer is no then surely we are talking about an Arahant or something like that. I can see no other way of answering than yes it can happen that someone who has undertaken the training rules might break them on account of lack of development.

we are or i am actually talking about a sotāpanna, a stream enterer. examine sarakāni sutta closely, he completed the training upon his death. what other training do you envision he completed?

As i understand it you hold that a Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts, is that it?

Do you mean "a Sotapanna" as 1/4 Noble Individuals or 2/8 when taken as Pairs?

What about Cula-Sotapanna mentioned in the Abhidhamma?

Is it all five precepts that cannot be broken by a Sotapanna or the 5th in particular?

Just want a clarification of what exactly is your position before i refute it.

sarakāni... utterly renouncing alcohol upon his death

Surely the bolded part is hammered out by your own reason and deduction because this has not been stated anywhere in the Tipitaka.

[Dhammarakkhito]

i dont think much of abhidhamma, havent read it, good reason to think its fake so probably never will
i understand in another sutta breaking the five precepts is not listed as an impossibility, only the five heinous offenses and taking a different teacher from the buddha
but it is there in those images on imgur. doodoot's objection is that it may be more than the bare minimum to attain stream entry, but its there in the sutta, one abstains from breaking those precepts thereby allaying that guilty dread. why prepare to refute if you need clarification on what i have to say?

[User1249x]

why prepare to refute if you need clarification on what i have to say?

I prepared to refute and wanted a clarification so that refutation would be most effective & accurate or just redundant after your response.

[dylanj]

don't drink any alcohol at all in anyway whatsoever at any place or time

this is best

it's not that hard

trying to make wiggle room is trying to let your passions indulge in evil

[dylanj]

that being said, see sarakaani sutta

[Sroberto]

This is exactly what i am talking about...

Buddhist = person who keeps precepts

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

There is nothing about "any" in the question. Specifically, drinking alcohol.

The question as worded implies continual or ongoing consumption of alcohol, not a lapse or one time occurance. Drink, infinitive. Regular drinking alcohol as an intentional act, by a monk, would definately make that monk not a buddhist.

If you are still unsure imagine walking by a wine bar and seeing two monks inside drinking Viognier and Merlot. Would you say, there are two buddist monks? Or would you say, how can they call themselves buddhist monks?

[User1249x]

This is exactly what i am talking about...

Buddhist = person who keeps precepts

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

There is nothing about "any" in the question. Specifically, drinking alcohol.

The question as worded implies continual or ongoing consumption of alcohol, not a lapse or one time occurance. Drink, infinitive. Regular drinking alcohol as an intentional act, by a monk, would definately make that monk not a buddhist.

If you are still unsure imagine walking by a wine bar and seeing two monks inside drinking Viognier and Merlot. Would you say, there are two buddist monks? Or would you say, how can they call themselves buddhist monks?

So Sarakaani the Sakyan was not a Buddhist while he was drinking then?

[DooDoot]

So Sarakaani the Sakyan was not a Buddhist while he was drinking then?

My recollection of the sutta is it does not explicitly say Sarakaani attained stream-entry when he was a heavy drinker or, otherwise, during a time afterwards when he gave drinking. Reading again, it merely says: "Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death."

[Sroberto]

This is exactly what i am talking about...

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

There is nothing about "any" in the question. Specifically, drinking alcohol.

The question as worded implies continual or ongoing consumption of alcohol, not a lapse or one time occurance. Drink, infinitive. Regular drinking alcohol as an intentional act, by a monk, would definately make that monk not a buddhist.

If you are still unsure imagine walking by a wine bar and seeing two monks inside drinking Viognier and Merlot. Would you say, there are two buddist monks? Or would you say, how can they call themselves buddhist monks?

So Sarakaani the Sakyan was not a Buddhist while he was drinking then?

Correct.

[User1249x]

So a monk who breaks any precept is not a Buddhist?

There is nothing about "any" in the question. Specifically, drinking alcohol.

The question as worded implies continual or ongoing consumption of alcohol, not a lapse or one time occurance. Drink, infinitive. Regular drinking alcohol as an intentional act, by a monk, would definately make that monk not a buddhist.

If you are still unsure imagine walking by a wine bar and seeing two monks inside drinking Viognier and Merlot. Would you say, there are two buddist monks? Or would you say, how can they call themselves buddhist monks?

So Sarakaani the Sakyan was not a Buddhist while he was drinking then?

Correct.

What about Ven. Sagata?

"Then Ven. Sagata went to the hermitage of the coiled-hair ascetic of Ambatittha, and on arrival — having entered the fire building and arranged a grass mat — sat down cross-legged with his body erect and mindfulness to the fore. The naga (living in the fire building) saw that Ven. Sagata had entered and, on seeing him, was upset, disgruntled, and emitted smoke. Ven. Sagata emitted smoke. The naga, unable to bear his rage, blazed up. Ven. Sagata, entering the fire element, blazed up. Then Ven. Sagata, having consumed the naga's fire with his own fire, left for Bhaddavatika.

"Then the Blessed One, having stayed at Bhaddavatika as long as he liked, left on a walking tour to Kosambi. The lay followers of Kosambi heard, 'They say that Ven. Sagata did battle with the Ambatittha naga!'

"Then the Blessed One, having toured by stages, came to Kosambi. The Kosambi lay followers, after welcoming the Blessed One, went to Ven. Sagata and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, 'What, venerable sir, is something the masters like that is hard for you to get? What can we prepare for you?'

"When this was said, some group-of-six bhikkhus said to the Kosambi lay followers, 'Friends, there is a strong liquor called pigeon's liquor (the color of pigeons' feet, according to the Commentary) that the bhikkhus like and is hard for them to get. Prepare that.'

"Then the Kosambi lay followers, having prepared pigeon's liquor in house after house, and seeing that Ven. Sagata had gone out for alms, said to him, 'Master Sagata, drink some pigeon's liquor! Master Sagata, drink some pigeon's liquor' Then Ven. Sagata, having drunk pigeon's liquor in house after house, passed out at the city gate as he was leaving the city.

"Then the Blessed One, leaving the city with a number of bhikkhus, saw that Ven. Sagata had passed out at the city gate. On seeing him, he addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'Bhikkhus, pick up Sagata.'

"Responding, 'As you say, venerable sir,' the bhikkhus took Ven. Sagata to the monastery and laid him down with his head toward the Blessed One. Then Ven. Sagata turned around and went to sleep with his feet toward the Blessed One. So the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'In the past, wasn't Sagata respectful to the Tathagata and deferential?'

"'Yes, venerable sir.'

"'But is he respectful to the Tathagata and deferential now?'

"'No, venerable sir.'

"'And didn't Sagata do battle with the Ambatittha naga?'

"'Yes, venerable sir.'

"'But could he do battle with even a salamander now?'

"'No, venerable sir.'"

[Sroberto]

So Sarakaani the Sakyan was not a Buddhist while he was drinking then?

Correct.

What about Ven. Sagata?

"Then Ven. Sagata went to the hermitage of the coiled-hair ascetic of Ambatittha, and on arrival — having entered the fire building and arranged a grass mat — sat down cross-legged with his body erect and mindfulness to the fore. The naga (living in the fire building) saw that Ven. Sagata had entered and, on seeing him, was upset, disgruntled, and emitted smoke. Ven. Sagata emitted smoke. The naga, unable to bear his rage, blazed up. Ven. Sagata, entering the fire element, blazed up. Then Ven. Sagata, having consumed the naga's fire with his own fire, left for Bhaddavatika.

"Then the Blessed One, having stayed at Bhaddavatika as long as he liked, left on a walking tour to Kosambi. The lay followers of Kosambi heard, 'They say that Ven. Sagata did battle with the Ambatittha naga!'

"Then the Blessed One, having toured by stages, came to Kosambi. The Kosambi lay followers, after welcoming the Blessed One, went to Ven. Sagata and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, 'What, venerable sir, is something the masters like that is hard for you to get? What can we prepare for you?'

"When this was said, some group-of-six bhikkhus said to the Kosambi lay followers, 'Friends, there is a strong liquor called pigeon's liquor (the color of pigeons' feet, according to the Commentary) that the bhikkhus like and is hard for them to get. Prepare that.'

"Then the Kosambi lay followers, having prepared pigeon's liquor in house after house, and seeing that Ven. Sagata had gone out for alms, said to him, 'Master Sagata, drink some pigeon's liquor! Master Sagata, drink some pigeon's liquor' Then Ven. Sagata, having drunk pigeon's liquor in house after house, passed out at the city gate as he was leaving the city.

"Then the Blessed One, leaving the city with a number of bhikkhus, saw that Ven. Sagata had passed out at the city gate. On seeing him, he addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'Bhikkhus, pick up Sagata.'

"Responding, 'As you say, venerable sir,' the bhikkhus took Ven. Sagata to the monastery and laid him down with his head toward the Blessed One. Then Ven. Sagata turned around and went to sleep with his feet toward the Blessed One. So the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'In the past, wasn't Sagata respectful to the Tathagata and deferential?'

"'Yes, venerable sir.'

"'But is he respectful to the Tathagata and deferential now?'

"'No, venerable sir.'

"'And didn't Sagata do battle with the Ambatittha naga?'

"'Yes, venerable sir.'

"'But could he do battle with even a salamander now?'

"'No, venerable sir.'"

You seem much more interested in your questions than you do in my answers; I find that very rude. It is clear to me that if you choose to continuously drink alcohol you are not a buddhist. I really have nothing more to add beyond that.

[User1249x]

You seem much more interested in your questions than you do in my answers; I find that very rude. It is clear to me that if you choose to continuously drink alcohol you are not a buddhist. I really have nothing more to add beyond that.

I find it incredibly rude that you revile Ven. Sarakaani the Sakyan, Ven. Sagata and other monks as well as lay-practitioners who ever took to drink based on what seems to be an incredibly absurd and simplistic misunderstanding of what is The Faith Faculty, what is a Precept and what it means to take a Refuge.

As far as i am concerned you have demonstrated fixation in view, an unbeliveable willingness to defend an uneducated opinion and attachment to mere moral observances.

I did not answer your counter-questions because we were discussing your quite offensive statement;

Buddhist = person who keeps precepts
Precepts = do not drink alcobol

Therefore, a Buddhist does not drink alcohol. To be a buddhist one takes refuge in the triple gem and undertakes the precepts. This makes one a buddhist. One does not get to intentionally pick and choose. The precept says not to intentionally drink alcohol. If you intentionally choose to drink alcohol as a matter of personal practice, then, by definition, you are not a buddhist.

The only question i ignored was a question requiring a long analytical explaination of my position

Would you say, there are two buddist monks? Or would you say, how can they call themselves buddhist monks?

a question irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of your position;

If you intentionally choose to drink alcohol as a matter of personal practice, then, by definition, you are not a buddhist.

For which you have no support in the Tipitaka.
When questioned on the matter and confronted with the Sarakaani Sutta, you double down on it and make up an explaination that has no support in neither the commentaries nor the Tipitaka;

So Sarakaani the Sakyan was not a Buddhist while he was drinking then?

Correct.

When further confronted with the Vinaya story of the Ven. Sagata and the origination of the monastic rule you are claiming victim-hood and avoiding the question.