Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 5 - Religion versus social science : a fresh look at the fourth and fifth precepts of Buddhism

#SociologyOfBuddhism

Some comments based on a Facebook discussion on a Zen Buddhism forum. It is turning out that while some religions (such as Christianity) seem to conflict with science, Buddhism is not without its conflicts. In many ways, Buddhism conflicts with the social sciences. In many ways, Buddhism plus Rationality equals Hinduism.

To see where I am coming from, continue to read below.

-+-

Let us take a different look at the fifth precept of Buddhism and let us read it closely.
5. Not giving or taking intoxicating substances.

Let us look at that in conjunction with the fourth precept.

4. Not lying.

What are we to make of these precepts? If we are to take not lying seriously, we have to be serious about what we say - and represent Truth to the greatest extent possible. And the truth is that while these are not incorrect as principles to follow in life, they tell you very little. I knew this stuff (about not using narcotic substances and not lying) by the time I was about 12.

Now, the Buddha was not aware that virtually everything we eat is a chemical substance in some form. These discoveries came after the Scientific Revolution. At the same time, we do know now that the chemical composition of foods from Ayurveda (from the "Vedic food methodology", if you will) are often
unknown. This is because they are often herbs and the chemical composition of these herbs can vary. And some of these herbs are, in fact, intoxicating substances.

What would this mean for Indians and Americans? Probably that they should avoid putting anything in their systems that could potentially harm them. That includes all substances that may be intoxicating and/or habit-forming. If you are taking any herbal supplments, talk to your doctor. And by all means, get the help you need. Note that this only applies to Indians and Americans. The British can, of course, do anything they want. [Ed note: this was just a small joke aimed at a couple of the British commenters on the forum]

Bottomline (an updated note on the 4th and fifth precepts): Precepts are precepts. These precepts should be interpreted with an understanding of what the problems with some of the earlier Buddhist writings were. The more important thing is to use good decision analysis tools when faced with actual decisions.

-+-

Further reading (another updated note on the 4th and 5th precepts) : just read the Tripitakas in full. Makes for lovely reading. And also, watch this TED video by Chimamanda Adichie -http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.
The way I treat this discussion is that there are going to be multiple perspectives on any topic. This does not bother me in the least. As a minority in America, and even as an intelligent, sentient Being, I know that this is just the way the world works. Please see everyone here as trying to contribute their perspectives in this discussion. An Insight for the day- the British often read written stuff (while reading it in their own minds and processing it) with a British accent. This leads them to misinterpret what Americans say, sometimes. At the same time, they are very polite about disagreements. Another contradiction that can only be termed Zen.

-+-

Further comments and thoughts (another updated note on the 4th and 5th precepts): Having looked through the comments, it is not so much I disagree with the commenters. My concern is that I disagree almost entirely that these decisions (such as when and how to take substances that may be intoxicating substances) should be taken in this fashion at all. What follows is a Decision Analysis perspective on this.

Having read the Tripitakas, I am less than sanguine about any real value that one can get vis-a-vis decision making on intoxicating substances. Of course, I personally avoid them and would recommend for other people to do so as well. But the thinking one gets out of reading the Buddhist texts is that main aim is to avoid any chances of losing Zen serenity and the chances of nirvana. This seems unavoidable as a conclusion. But this reasoning is flawed.

Please see a simplification of this idea of avoiding anything that cloud thoughts in Joel's comment below (Ed Note: Forget about scrolling below to see Joel's comment. I made that statement on the forum because Joel X. had commented regarding this in one of the comments. Joel summarized the precept and simplified the matter in one of the comments on the discussion forum where, basically, he said: "if you take substance X and substance X clouds your thinking, then substance X is not a good thing to take"). But while simplicity is considered important in Zen and this idea of simplicity can be applied in some places (such as product design, for instance), it is a mistake to think that decisions in life are necessarily simple. People use drugs for many reasons, and their decisions are influenced by many factors. They may use intoxicating substances for one or more reasons- because they are bored, because their friends are doing it, because it is the cool thing to do, because they are curious, et cetera. If the reasons for using drugs/intoxicating substances are many, then what reason is there then to think that the decision making around how to proceed vis-a-vis not using intoxicating substances is simple?

The truth of the matter is that one can get a better understanding of this sort of decision making by learning about statistics (P-values, variance and standard deviation measures, and such).

How may this be applied to decision making - for example, consider this. I have a certificate which entitles you to $100 if the toss of a biased coin I hold in my hand comes up heads and nothing if it comes up tails. How much would you pay for it? This exercise may not seem to have much to do with intoxicating substances, but the fact of the matter is that if you are recommended by your doctor to use marijuana or some other intoxicating substances, for instance, thinking about the coin toss question more deeply will indeed lead you down the path of better decision making.

If the main aim is to make better decisions regarding intoxicating substances, then formal decision analytical models are a better guide to this. Of course, we know that it is not good to take intoxicating substances because it clouds reasoning (As I said, I knew this when I was about 12). But there is much more to it since they also have physiological effects. First, they have addictive properties; two, they can cause certain types of damage to the brain such as by causing the brain to adapt to higher doses of dopamine; three, they can have other harmful longer term permanent effects. Decisions such as whether to take an intoxicating substance (such as, say, beer) must be made with an idea of specifically how addictive the substance is, what other effects the substance has and what the pro's and con's of using the substance are.

Decisions are seldom made this way, but that does not mean they should be made any other way. As Stanford's Ron Howard once said, "You can either use this sort of a decision analytical system, or you can use another system which will doubtless prove to be an inferior one."