Drinking wine to early

I agree. But drinking (human) blood and eating (human) flesh is a bit too much.
I believe that nonsense was built up by the young church. Although the gospels do include Jesus in that primitive tradition I believe that this was written in to his story 'after the fact'.
 
That's a personal conviction, I'm assuming?

Did anything specifically lead you there?
Study of the gospels over time leading to such decisions.
Conviction and certitude can't really be claimed after so long, and with such varying accounts.
But Jesus didn't seem to be the least interested in any kinds of sacrifice, simulated cannibalism etc.
Whilst I do think that Jesus the man lived, did hold a mission against a corrupted and greed filled Priesthood.......no more for me, really.
 
Well theories of the Eucharist make it seem as if they do on some level
At some level, yes, but not at the corporeal level ... if we were eating His flesh, or drinking His blood, then that body would have been used up millennia ago! :D

Mind you, to be fair, there was a time ... Christian exegesis in the West around the 1st millennium became quite morbid – a tutor once said you'd think the altars were running with blood – the focus on 'the body' became rather intense, they language hyperbolic.
 
At some level, yes, but not at the corporeal level ... if we were eating His flesh, or drinking His blood, then that body would have been used up millennia ago! :D
Well but if it is miraculous...
I used to speculate about what on earth they could possibly mean about the Eucharist turning into literal body and blood.
Well in a literal way it does AFTER the worshiper consumes it, it helps build their cells and blood, and the believers are the body of Christ so...
 
LOL ... again, the Eucharist is way off topic here ... If you wanna discuss, we can go ahead ...
 
LOL ... again, the Eucharist is way off topic here ... If you wanna discuss, we can go ahead ...
I think it would be interesting. It may or may not be off topic given that it does refer to drinking wine, but perhaps it needs a new thread.
 
If some would be wise, they would understanding it as a well meant, but not really wise transported meaning, which simply explains the truth of goodness (via a "banal" simile, since most regard body as own, self, would be incapable to understand "good" beyound just goods), dependence, debt. What ever provided as "food", bodily, mental, requires others sacrifices, pain. It's common to just "eat off the/a teacher, giver" without ever getting a sense of debt and urgent to use it for overcoming dependency, even if the giver wasn't really all that pure.

People with wrong view, thinking they have inherent rights, consumer, don't understand and see debts, don't see sacrifices, and only seek out for intoxications to bear their hopeless ways further on, awaiting just the next occasion of using off own and others goodness, sacrifices and past and present burdens.

No need to ask of whom would only think about being willing to nurish on a person of goodness by bodily feed... and take on such.

Take care! (in the very sense of the words, not just as meaningless saying)
 
Pondering on it a bit...

More than drinking alcohol or abstaining from alcohol, I see the strong attachment to either as a bigger issue.

If one feels a strong pull to drink, and finds that impossible to overcome, that is a problem. If one walks around with a chip on their shoulder about not drinking and extends a poor attitude to those who do, I consider that a problem, too. One lends physical toxins, the other mental. Neither are good if unbalanced. (In small amounts, I'd say such toxins are a normal part of life.)

If one has a preference for or against, that is okay, too, but it is attachment to that preference that causes pain.
 
If some would be wise, they would understanding it as a well meant, but not really wise transported meaning, which simply explains the truth of goodness (via a "banal" simile, since most regard body as own, self, would be incapable to understand "good" beyound just goods), dependence, debt. What ever provided as "food", bodily, mental, requires others sacrifices, pain. It's common to just "eat off the/a teacher, giver" without ever getting a sense of debt and urgent to use it for overcoming dependency, even if the giver wasn't really all that pure.

People with wrong view, thinking they have inherent rights, consumer, don't understand and see debts, don't see sacrifices, and only seek out for intoxications to bear their hopeless ways further on, awaiting just the next occasion of using off own and others goodness, sacrifices and past and present burdens.

No need to ask of whom would only think about being willing to nurish on a person of goodness by bodily feed... and take on such.

Take care! (in the very sense of the words, not just as meaningless saying)
Hello!
Your advise could apply to any people who run up debts of any kind.
But alcohol is enjoyed by many people in moderation. What would you say to those people who have used alcohol for many years without dependence or harm?
 
The middlepath means also, right after right view, right after right resolve (which has abstaining from any sensual pleasure as 1. factor) abstaining from taking intoxication, drinking, and no, absolutely no, good teaching will tolerate drinking as something minor fault. The Sublime Buddha taught the middle path, and sure never told anybody to go after what's one's opinion of well and fine.
If wishing to do hopeless favors, that's fine, but one should be assured that one cuts off any way for good for oneself and those done a favor by cherish defilments.

Again, Atma doesn't find it of any use to contribute anything in a "turn religions toward desires of Marx children and hopeless"-board, who are incapable to act responsible and with care. No need to speak about Jains who think they are wise when trying to use the Gems to serve their defilements.

Beings gather together by an element, drinker with drinker, cheater with cheater... on and on. Unless not changing habits, there isn't any access upwardly, not to speak about relation toward wise.

Even if one "just" desires heavens, the Brahmas, such would be of need, eg. virtue.
 
The middlepath means also, right after right view, right after right resolve (which has abstaining from any sensual pleasure as 1. factor) abstaining from taking intoxication, drinking, and no, absolutely no, good teaching will tolerate drinking as something minor fault. The Sublime Buddha taught the middle path, and sure never told anybody to go after what's one's opinion of well and fine.
If wishing to do hopeless favors, that's fine, but one should be assured that one cuts off any way for good for oneself and those done a favor by cherish defilments.

Again, Atma doesn't find it of any use to contribute anything in a "turn religions toward desires of Marx children and hopeless"-board, who are incapable to act responsible and with care. No need to speak about Jains who think they are wise when trying to use the Gems to serve their defilements.

Beings gather together by an element, drinker with drinker, cheater with cheater... on and on. Unless not changing habits, there isn't any access upwardly, not to speak about relation toward wise.

Even if one "just" desires heavens, the Brahmas, such would be of need, eg. virtue.
No, I have never been against sensual pleasures, only that they should be in limits. Drugs, IMV, are outside that limit.
I have fulfilled all that I consider my responsibilities, which do not include teaching 'dhamma'. I am not SammasamBuddha like Siddharta Gautama.
 
No, I have never been against sensual pleasures, only that they should be in limits. Drugs, IMV, are outside that limit.
So pharmaceutical drugs are outside the limit despite saving lives, easing pain, lowering blood pressure or mitigating mental issues?

Or pharmaceuticals are OK?

Are they OK when used for euphoria or sensual pleasures when used like alcohol or tobacco?

Oops aren't alcohol and tobacco actually drugs?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top