Intoxication and the Precepts

At the culmination of retreats led by Shi-Fu the opportunity is usually given to participants to take the Precepts. Retreatants are told that they may take all the precepts, or they may choose to take only some. I think without exception participants unhesitatingly recite their intention to keep all the Precepts until the recitation reaches the Precept that states the intention to "refrain from the use of intoxicants"; there is always a noticeable drop in the volume of voices at this juncture as a sizeable proportion of the congregation become mute. What exactly is happening here, and, more importantly, what is the meaning of this particular Precept?

At first glance, the matter seems pretty clear. In our society, the non-excessive use of intoxicants, particularly alcohol (although increasingly also 'soft' drugs such as marijuana) is regarded as quite acceptable. Compared to the admonitions against killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and the harming of the Dharma, a little tipple now and again seems pretty innocuous. Many practitioners reason that a glass of wine with their meal, or a beer or two with the odd pub lunch, is hardly likely to cause any major harm.

Surely the Precept is concerned only with excessive use leading to severe clouding of consciousness, the loss of inhibitions and thus potentially the conditions that might lead to the breaking of the more 'serious' Precepts. It could be countered that there can be no gradation of a Precept. If the same principle were applied to the other Precepts, then we might say that killing a 'lesser' sentient being (e.g. a fly), stealing an ashtray from a pub, lying about our age, or indulging in a little light hearted flirting are all right. But this seems a rather pedantic interpretation, and the Precepts, as is the case generally with Buddhadharma, are essentially a practical tool rather than a set of rigid dogmatic laws.

A more fruitful line of enquiry arises if we stop to consider exactly what is meant by the term 'intoxicant'. We assume the word alludes to alcohol and other substances/drugs, but is this all that is referred to? I do not know how the original Pali/Sanskrit/Chinese terms are defined, but in English 'intoxicate' comes from the Latin term meaning 'to poison'. An intoxicant may elate, inebriate, overwhelm, stimulate or confuse. Anything in our lives that may cause such unbalanced states of mind could be termed thus.

Immediately it becomes apparent that 'intoxicant' need not refer only to substances that we physically ingest. If we look at the modern Western world, we can see a great many situations, commodities and social structures that fulfil the definition. Television soap-operas, obsessive shopping, fanatical support of a football team, sexual titillation, addiction to constant news updates, the National Lottery, the incredible and quite irrational level of choice in consumer goods (I once counted over thirty kinds of toothpaste in a large pharmacy), all these might act as intoxicants to the unguarded mind. It is not difficult to think up a great many similar examples.

Bearing this in mind, the Precept against indulging in intoxicants takes on new meaning. It is not primarily a proscription against any particular substances; rather it is a warning against indulgence in harmful, addictive and mind-clouding activities, whatever their nature. In taking this Precept, we are undertaking to root out whatever activities and habits exist in our own individual lives that cause the clouding of consciousness and thus the obstruction of Buddha-nature. To avoid taking this Precept in the mistaken belief that the occasional alcoholic beverage disbars one is to deny oneself an invaluable aid on the pathless Path.