Update on zen practice

It occurred to me this morning that I have not written about zen practice in some time.  In some ways, this is an indication of where I am with practice and it might be useful to other people to know about this place.


In practical terms I am sitting regularly every day, sitting sesshin (group meditation intensives) regularly, studying with my teacher through podcasts and other recordings, and I have added brush-work to my practice routine (what you might recognize as Oriental calligraphy).  My ethical decisions are guided by the Buddhist precepts and fundamentally by the Bodhisattva's vow, I.e., "I vow to live for the benefit of all sentient beings."  I mention this not as some role model to be emulated, but just to provide a window into these parts of my life that are not always visibly apparent.  I am certain in the future things will change.  They always do. 


I am realizing the Truth contained in many of the pithy sayings about and around zen practice that regularly seem confusing and intentionally crafted to obscure or frankly Bullshit something.  "Zen is useless" is a good example.


"Using zen" presents a double-bind.  Anything that is useful isn't zen. Anything that is a means or method to attain something incorporates the deluded intentions of an abstracted conceptual view.  Zen is liberation from such views.


I don't mean to imply that abstracted conceptual views are bad, inferior, stupid, or in any way something to be eschewed.  If you didn't nurture and operate within these views you would be unable to get dressed and go to work in the morning, or feed yourself, or care for your family, or any number of things that have intrinsic value to us as social beings.


it is just that operating within these views is something different from seeing things are they really are.  A baseball bat is actually mostly empty space (we know this from investigations into quantum physics, which seems to me to be another method for seeing things as they really are), but if you swing it at someone's head, which is also mostly empty space, the collision between these two concepts of empty space is going to appear as if both are actually solid.


Grasping some notion that we somehow are able to transcend the solid appearance of those two objects and cause them to pass through each other harmlessly is delusion.  Just because I "get" the reality there conceptually doesn't grant me some special powers to change appearances, regardless of what may in fact actually be possible.  If it can be that a baseball bat can swing harmlessly through someone's head it won't happen because someone had a conceptual notion of that coupled to an intention to accomplish it.


That is, we have to deal with appearances.  You appear to be real, I appear to be real, but we don't have to confuse appearances with reality.  That is, we don't have to grip solidly to the notion that these appearances represent reality any more than we have to believe that when we kill someone in a video game that anything really living actually dies.  This background awareness does not change our ability to play the game 


For example, I sometimes struggle with being single.  My dissatisfaction with this state mostly springs from the notion that things would be better if I had a partner.  For many reasons, this is a reasonable notion.  Humans seem to do better in pair-bonds for the most part, it's likely I would find regular sexual activity with a partner satisfying, and there are undeniable economic benefits to sharing some resources in the maintenance of a household life in the world in which I live.  Also, it seems that married people live longer. 


Gripping tightly to this view requires that I dismiss some things I also see as being less relevant.  That is, I have to dismiss the real pain and struggle that I see my married friends undergoing in their marriages.  I have to dismiss the many satisfactions of the freedom to be the final authority on my living situation, budget, travel plans, etc, etc, etc.  To be convinced of the notion that being single is an absolute tragedy I have to abstract a concept from the available facts.  Including the notion that a longer life is de facto a better life. 


The reality underlying all of this is we are all alone, even in the midst of orgasm with an ideal sex partner we are ultimately undergoing that ecstasy alone.  It is only us.  There is nothing but singularity.  That's reality.


The buddha-dharma teaches that these concepts, while useful, are not real.  That is, when I talk about "seeing things as they really are" I am talking about a constant practice of reminding myself that something very different is actually going on than the narrative in my head.  The narrative represents my mind's reaction to reality, it is not real itself.


This is why sitting quietly and still while staring at a wall is useful to me.  When I settle down my activity to this level, in spite of the fact that mind is as active as ever, perhaps because I am doing so little else, I am able to discern perception from awareness.  Perception takes up a lot of space, it seems to be everything there is, but actually there's a space outside of it.  This is pure awareness.


As I realize that all of my pain is derived from perception, awareness is indistinguishable from perfect bliss, I find significant comfort in knowing that however solid that baseball bat appears, it is actually mostly empty space.  That is, my narrative about what is going on is not what is going on.  There's real peace there.


This peace is with you, right now.  All that any of us have to do is get out of our way.  Christians, Jews and Muslims seem to call this God's love, finding comfort there.  Hindus call it something else, Atheists find it in their release from the notion of external metaphysical authority.  There is only one Reality, and it is right in front of us at all times.


That's where we are. 

Three fairy tales

I had an insight today. Much of the pain in life can be traced to my belief in one or more of three fairy tales.

1. Most people eat what they want, as much as they want, as often as they want, and they suffer no adverse consequences for this behavior, I.e., they are at the weight they want, have the body contours they want, and rarely deny themselves a food/eating experience they want.

2. Most people have romantic relationships that develop effortlessly with each participant confident in their position in the relationship, comfortable with the pace of the relationship, always sure of, and comfortable with, the next step in the relationship.

3. Most people are rewarded professionally according to their abilities and the degree to which they contribute positively to the organization. Success is the inevitable consequence of the diligent and faithful application of hard work, skill and integrity.

Stopped laughing yet?

Of course, I "know" these are fairy tales. The extent to which I believe that these fallacies do not operate in my consciousness is exactly the extent to which they exercise an unseen influence on my conclusions concerning how well things are going. That is, the more I believe that I don't really buy into these notions the more I kick myself for not living a life which lives up to them.

It's like advertising. Advertisers know well that advertising messages exert the greatest influence over people who have convinced themselves that advertising has no effect on them. Advertising has little effect on people who are aware of the fact that they can be influenced by advertising. These people factor in that fact into their buying decision. They know their opinions about what to buy are skewed by advertising and that very awareness mitigates the effect. I thought about this just today when buying batteries at Radio Shack. I almost paid more for the brand name batteries until I reflected on the fact that I have no experience that they are any better or last any longer than the cheaper house brand batteries. So, I bought the house brand.

When I realize that my dissatisfaction with my life mostly derives from the fact that I buy into one of these three fairy tales it dissipates as rapidly as my preference for the brown batteries over the black ones. What are your fairy tales?

My First Hike

Two years ago, in October 2009, while visiting New Mexico, I drove two friends of mine to a trailhead in the Pecos Wilderness so they could hike up to a lake called Lake Baldy (near a peak called Mount Baldy).  I wanted to go with them.  That was not an option. I weighed over 400 pounds.  Walking one tenth of the distance they planned to cover that day was my limit, and that was my limit on flat ground at sea level--they were climbing from about 9000 feet to over 11,000 feet in elevation over rugged wilderness trail.

I watched them disappear on the trail with tears in my eyes.  I resolved on that spot to make this hike within a year.

Two years later, I just finished my first hike. It was not this one, it was shorter and not as demanding, but it was in the same wilderness, just sort of over to the east and a bit lower, but it was a real hike into the wilderness.  I just did something I've never done before, something two years ago I could not do.

We hiked from the Iron Gate trailhead to the Mora Flats in the Pecos Wilderness of Northern New Mexico.  We hiked trail 249 to where it crosses 250, then taking 250 down into Mora Flats.  Mora Flats is a flat area between mountain ranges, a long oblong rolling meadow along a river bank bordered by mountain ranges on all sides.  It is about 2 miles long and about a quarter of a mile wide.  It is covered in soft grasses and wildflowers.  Most people arrive on horseback.

It is about a 400 foot descent into the Flats from Iron Gate.   Unfortunately, the trail is not straight down.  You descend about 300 feet as you navigate over the ridges on the west side.  That is, you begin with a 200 foot climb, then you descend 400 feet, then make 4 sections of 100 foot climbs (over three miles of trail) before at the end you drop over 500 feet down on to the flats.  Once on the flats, we hiked about halfway up to camp right where two rivers ran together.

So, it is a little easier going in than coming out.

My companions live at 7000 feet.  I live at sea level.  I was carrying a 50 pound pack, but my limiting factor wasn't my legs or feet, it was catching my breath.  I am long accustomed to carrying far more than 50 pounds in excess of my current curb weight.    My problem was I was hiking 9500 feet in excess of the altitude to which I am accustomed.  My companions weren't  skipping through the tulips either, everyone was huffing and puffing, but they could hike faster than I so I became self-conscious about this.

Talk about never satisfying expectations!  Even hiking high country with a heavy pack I wasn't performing up to my specs!  The hardest part about being the slow hiker was that I never got to stop hiking.  They would hike ahead of me and wait, taking in the awesome beauty around us for a moment or two while they waited on me without the burden of having to think about where to step next.  Just as I trudged up to where they were standing they would take off again.  I would never break stride, I would just keeping putting one foot in front of the other, my friends just momentarily in closer proximity than usual.

I was very focused on not falling down. I was very aware that a relatively minor injury could be major hassle.  My attention was completely focused on my steps.  Each step was the entire universe, I just took care of them one at a time.  It was marvelous zen practice, but it meant I couldn't really look around.  My eyes were constantly scanning the trail in front of me, I needed to be sure of every step.  I was on a rough, rocky trail.  I was carrying 50 pounds on my back.  I did not want to fall.

My tent on the Mora River

Once we got to the campsite it became clear that a mistake had been made when packing.  I had all the water.  My pack was almost twice as heavy as anyone else's.  We made camp fairly rapidly, within an hour of arriving I was napping on my sleeping bag.  There were sheepish apologies about the packs. If it had not been my first hike I might have suspected the mistake, but I don't know how much my pack is supposed to weigh.

It was wet, and one of those effed up situations that follows me around came to a head.  The day before I was making a run to REI for a few supplies.  I solicited a list from my companions and they began just mentally calling out what they would need and checking what they had against what they needed.  On the list was newspaper.  I put it on my list and they both laughed at me, saying we didn't need to buy newspaper, there was plenty at the house, ha ha, funny guy for putting that in the list.

So, I took it off my list and forgot about it.  Well, guess what we needed to start a fire and didn't have?  We almost didn't have a fire because of it.  If it had not been for a section of rope I found tied to a tree we would not have been able to start one.  All of the leaves and twigs around were damp.  It had been raining.  But, because of the rope I found we had a fire, a truly great campfire, it did finally come together nicely.   We went to bed after a while, which was good, because another downpour was on the way.

We had good tents pitched on good ground, so the rain was just a sleep aid.  I was the first to wake up, so I hiked up on top of the ridge we were next to, made some instant iced coffee (that ice-maker was heavy, too!) and watched the sun come up after my morning sit.

I guess that's where it all hit me.  I had hiked into the wilderness and spent the night.  There wasn't anyone else around.  We had gone far beyond the reaches of casual campers, they were miles back behind us.  I was on an outcropping of rocks where two rivers converge, surrounded by spectacular wildlife, and I had gotten there under my own power with my shelter, food and water on my back.  Wow.  This is a life I've never known before, a life I thought I never would have until very recently.  There's good reason why people go to all the trouble to do this kind of thing.

After my companions arose we had breakfast, freeze-dried chicken teriyaki, which was surprisingly good.  They wanted to make a day hike up the river, which I didn't appreciate the appeal of until it dawned on me I wouldn't be carrying a pack.  Oh cool, we can just walk.  Walking is fun.

Vibram Five Finger Shoes
after a 12 mile hike in the Wilderness.

Because I had wisely risked my first hiking experience in my Vibram Five Finger shoes, I could walk on rocky trail, along river bottoms, grassy meadows, creek beds, and slog through mud without worrying about swamping my shoes.  If and when they got wet they simply air-dried in a few minutes.  I had not one blister or any kind of problem with my feet, and I could use my toes for fine balance.   I can't recommend these things enough.

We hiked about a mile up river, bushwhacking (off trail hiking) the entire way, it was a slow go, but we went to places probably unseen by human eyes for many seasons.  There's no way to describe how interesting and intimidating this is.  You are on your own.  If something went wrong out here a rescue would take days.

We got back down to the campsite after a couple of hours and took down the camp.  I was really good at this, I finished long before my companions and I kept waiting for them to put stuff into my pack.  It seemed too light.  As it turns out, apparently out of shame for loading me up on the way in, my pack out was at least 20 pounds lighter.  That was a good thing, because the hike out was almost all uphill.

As with most physical challenges, the real challenge was mental.  As I climbed the ridge, my mouth got dry because I was breathing so hard and fast.  I wanted to quit, but I realized that all of my quit had to do with a forecasted dread of what things would be like in the future.  Right now, right then and there, I was fine.  I had enough wind, I could take my next step, and the entire hike, even the "worst" parts of it in hindsight, were all like this moment.  I can make the next step, I just can't imagine making all of the next steps.

Well, as it turns out, you only have to make the next step.  If you keep making the next step, all the steps get made.

It rained and hailed on us on the way out.  This was another odd wilderness realization I had.  When it started raining, my natural inclination was to look for shelter, there's gotta be a Starbucks around here somewhere, right?  No, there's no where to go when it rains, or hails.   You just keep going.  It wasn't bad, but leaving that inclination to shelter alone was also an interesting practice.

It got tired on the last mile, even though it was level or downhill.  I was spent.  I hiked even slower, but I kept putting one foot in front of the other.  Never before has the sound of a car door slamming been such sweet music to my ears (we could hear the trailhead before we could see it).  Never before has sitting in an automotive seat been such unending bliss.  I was mostly looking forward to not carrying a pack, even if it was only 30 pounds on the way out.

I still had to drive down over a muddy road in ill repair before I could rest, but that was no big deal.  I pushed down on a pedal and hills were climbed.  Magic.

Mora Flats September 2011

I learned a few things.  I can hike.  This was not a terribly challenging hike, but it was no training-wheel experience either.  My companions, both experienced hikers, were hitting the Ibuprofen when we got home too.  They were tired.  The last part of the hike out kicked their ass too.  They've hiked much more, and much longer distances, but this was a hike.  I can do this.

A tsunami of loneliness

I have no idea where it comes from, but this morning as I was walking to get some coffee I was hit by a tsunami of loneliness. I was completely overwhelmed by the feeling, it washed over me, taking me, pulling me down like some tragic undertow, it brought so many tears to my eyes that I could barely see well enough to walk down a mostly empty city sidewalk.

I was thinking about the woman who works at the coffee shop that was my destination. We have gotten to know each other a little bit. We know each other's names and engage in a bit more than polite customer service chatter while she pulls the shots of espresso for my drink.

I think she's beautiful, and there's the clarity and energy of intelligence in her voice and manner. I'm sure she's much younger than I am, but I don't let that talk me out of my attachment to her. As long as she remains only my beautiful friend at the coffee shop details like our actual compatibility are irrelevant—just needless ways to spoil my fun. I indulge myself in my fondness for her privately except for what might be confessed to those who might notice my smile when I see her, nothing else really matters.

She's the only person at the coffee shop whose name I know, even though I am in there at least once a day. Her employer should know that she sells coffee for them. If I see her in there I stop-in, regardless of my actual desire for coffee. Her greeting and smile are reason enough.

She's not the cause of my loneliness, in fact, I'm not sure that loneliness even needs a cause. I mention her because it was her that I was thinking about when I was swallowed whole by loneliness this morning. Interestingly enough, she was at work when I got there, a surprise, since I had grown accustomed to seeing her in the evening hours. She smiles in such a way that the corners of her eyes turn up when she sees me. It's a genuine and warm greeting. We connect. My loneliness vanishes as quickly as it arose, fading, slipping quietly back to my ocean of emotion.

What does it really mean to be lonely anyway? We are all alone. What are these thoughts and feelings that collectively coalesce into this flavor of sad? We think that this has something to do with the people around us, and the quality of those connections, but everyone has experienced instances during which an irrational pang of isolation arises in the midst of being in the midst of some interaction normally thought to be intimate. Conversely, I think the experience of being connected with everything while in solitude visits everyone's life on occasion.

If we take these experiences, and their seeming ubiquity, as evidence of the lack of association between a dearth of actual social community and loneliness, then what is loneliness? What is it made out of?

Google+ killed the Social Networking Star

When Google+ emerged I admit I was sold almost immediately.  I trust Google technically.  I long solved the problem of trusting them to mine my data by simply not sharing anything online (not even in e-mail) that I really need to keep private.  I have friends in my physical surroundings to turn to for support about such sensitive topics, plus I have a 11 year relationship with a therapist with whom I share one of the richest relationships of my life.

So, when I've got something come up that is so sensitive that it's not appropriate for this space I simply don't mention it online.  Yes, I have had such things happen recently.  I have a number of wise, loving, understanding friends in my geophysical vicinity who are generous with their hearts and with their time when I need a true, exclusive confidant.

Further, zen practice has helped me move beyond the notion that the self is something that exists, much less something that needs to be protected.  So I really don't care if people use information like the fact that I have a therapist, or have had bariatric surgery, or have a thing for Asian women, or any number of other potentially embarrassing factoids against this entity called rdewald (or Richard DeWald) that you all mistakenly believe really exists.  

It doesn't.

it seems to, I know.  It appears to, I will grant you that fully, it really does seem to be something individually-existing and separately-identifiable.  But after looking at it carefully, I see that it's not real.  There's no there there.  Really.

So, Google+'s real-name policy doesn't bother me.  They simply need to make an adjustment to associate handles with real names, and then enforce the one user instance per human being policy using the real name.  This will accomplish their ends and it will be over with.  

There is a social engineering aspect to this they are also acting to exploit.  People are much better behaved when they can be held accountable for their behavior.  Almost everyone I know uses online anonymity to enable something they otherwise hide.  I don't.  I've found that there's a good reason why I'm ashamed.  Shame is very wise.  

It seems fun to be sexy, or sadistic, or outrageous anonymously, but the truth is just like overeating is not an effective way to manage anxiety, or binge drinking to manage shyness, or indulgence in sadism to manage powerlessness, shameful behavior is unwise not because it is wrong, but because it doesn't work.  There's no tranquility in a Big Mac, no confidence at the bottom of a bottle, no power in hurting people.  These are all dead ends.  They don't work, they just fool us.

Google has decided that their online community will be a nicer place if people have the accountability of their real names, since these are so widely identifiable.  They're wrong.  This is an adolescent notion and I expect they will abandon it.  Humans are not so simple.

People already have a non-anonymous handle via e-mail addresses.  There's a mature model already in place.  We all have several e-mail addresses, but we typically use one of them as our primary account.  That's the address we use to conduct online commerce, mostly stay in touch with people, and operate as an online citizen.  That's what Google is interested in, they should keep their eye on the ball and give up social engineering.  It doesn't work.

I can't believe that so many otherwise rational and seemingly intelligent people are getting wrapped up in this as if they, as users, have a stake in Google+.  The users aren't the customers.  The users are the product.  Advertisers are the customers.  They charge (or will charge) the advertisers.  They are the true stakeholders.

The users don't pay the bills, the advertisers do.  Get over it.

So, as a user, I have this contract with Google+:  you enable my social networking, I allow you to analyze what I post here, both text and media, examine and track my relationships so that you can tell your customers, the advertisers, what I am likely to buy.

Agreed.  Thanks for all the fish.

But, we are in an in-between time here.  Google is following their long-successful model of development.  They put something usable out there, let people use it, and find out from the users what is broken and what needs to be fixed.  Once something is working, they are very conservative with deployment.  It takes them a long time to roll out enhancements.

Meanwhile, Google+ kicks Multiply (my primary social networking platform) out of the park because of the user base.  I had solved this problem personally because I belong to a very robust and cohesive online community that moved to Multiply.  As a platform, Multiply is okay for social networking, more than okay actually.  They have a few niggling problems to work out technically, but it works well for the most part.  The problem is people have to sign up for a separate account.  That's a high hurdle.  It will be their undoing.

Multiply also faces a business problem.  They have two customer groups to please with directly conflicting, mutually unresolvable needs.  They regard both their group of users and their advertisers as customers.  They can't do anything but piss one or both of them off in some way.  Television dealt with this for many years by scarcity, they were the only game in town, now that industry has turned to unscrupulous pandering to the basest instincts, the lowest common denominator, and has all but killed off creativity in the medium, which completely loses people like me.  I don't have TV service in my home.  Their advertisers have completely lost access to me.

I just let my Multiply premium account expire because I don't see my social networking future on Multiply any longer, so I am seeing the banner ads and the pimping to my inbox that they must do to sell advertising.  That makes this a MUCH less desirable social networking platform.  If it weren't already circling the drain in my life this would have done it by itself.  I can certainly see now why they don't attract new users.  Facebook does this a lot better.

But Google+ didn't release their API in time, they missed that bus.  There's not a large enough Android user base to sustain the model's reliance on third party app integration.  They need to be fed by twitter, IOS, and Facebook.  They need to be fed by third party apps.  They needed to take a lesson from Twitter that they missed.

They'll get it.  They're Google.  But it sucks to wait.

Meanwhile, Google+ has sucked the air out of the room at Multiply, yet it's not ready to it's replacement.  Sigh.  My online social life is suffering because of it.

That sucks.

Rules for Google plus Hang-outs

It had to happen, this is a new social form, someone has to get it started, so I'm appointing myself.

1. You don't have to stay.  It is perfectly okay to stop in, say hello, (crash your browser) and leave.  
2. Safari seems to work better for me (2010-era MacMini 4GB RAM).  Not really a rule, but I thought that information might be helpful.  Firefox 3.x seems particularly wonky (surprise!)  Chrome seems to spawn dupe processes and memory leak (what a surprise that the Googlopolis codes up Apple products better...).
3. You don't have to talk.  Lurking is okay as long as your video appears to be working.  The whole black screen thing is creepy, unless you're doing something we don't want to see.
4. Pants are optional, but nobody wants the full-length webcam view.  Nobody.  The black screen isn't that creepy.
5. Be prepared for discussions about bandwidth.
6. There is no Rule number six.
7. Musical instruments are encouraged.
8. Try to be well-lit.  Or, failing that lit-up.  Drinking is also encouraged.
9. Come and go as you please.  This isn't a social obligation and things are actually more interesting when people come and go, we can talk about you behind your back that way.
10. The system is in beta.  It crashes, it can be choppy, A/V sync is sometimes fraught with lag, but hey, that's why we talk about bandwidth.
11. Our list of rules goes to eleven.

A follower of the Way does not intoxicate oneself or others.

Like the third precept about sensual misconduct, this is another of the precepts that generates a lot of interest, both in myself and among those in my peer group.  It seems most obviously to be an admonition against substance abuse (be that substance alcohol or any variety of other intoxicating substances).  Moral guidance with regard to intoxicating substances does rightfully belong with this precept, no doubt, but I see a subtler and broader view as well.

As with the other precepts, I find a rule-making view such as "don't drink alcohol or do drugs" to be too rigid and easily grasped, though that can be regarded as good advice.  On one hand, I like a drink now and again and I haven't found enjoying such to be a moral quandary, neither for myself nor for many of my friends and acquaintances.  I've even enjoyed a modicum of recreation and relaxation via intoxicating substances with and in the company of people whose religious practice and sense of moral awareness I deeply admire, and I still do from time to time.

On the other hand, I have also known many people whose lives (and often the lives of those around them) have been literally destroyed by the abuse of intoxicating substances.  At the same time, it has not escaped my notice that I've also seen similar destruction waged by means of intoxication with work, with various avocations, with excessive religiosity and by excessively ardent political views.  I've seen people do real harm because of being dangerously intoxicated with Buddhism.  I suppose one could even get dangerously intoxicated with the precepts themselves.

Welcome to human life.  This is the mushy and dynamic netherworld in which we find ourselves with regard to this and every other moral question.  One intoxicating notion that I think it is very important to disabuse one's self of is the notion that there are moral absolutes.  There are none, not even that one.

The word intoxicant contains the word "toxic."  I think that's the point here.  For example, in my practice as a nurse I've been ardently drilled in the awareness  that every single pharamcologic agent that I administer, no matter how life-saving and comfort-inducing it may be in the proper dosage, can also kill if administered by the wrong route, in the wrong dosage, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason, or to the wrong patient.

That is, there is no absolutely safe substance, not even water itself.  You can kill someone with too much water, you can arrest someone's heart and breathing with too much oxygen.  One can save a life with a single administration of a single drug one single time, and one can give the same drug in the same dosage to another person at the same time and end their life.  That is, there are no pharmacologic absolutes either.  Every drug is potentially a poison.

Similarly, every idea, every construct to which one can grasp, is potentially intoxicating.  I read Tricycle magazine, an American magazine aimed at Buddhists.  Periodically, they will run some recipe for something seemingly wholesome and innocuous like chicken soup.  Inevitably, in the very next issue there will be some outraged letter to the editor demanding an apology, that they cease associating themselves with Buddhism, a immediate retraction of the recipe, or at the very least reminding them that an action like publishing a chicken soup recipe is tantamount to torturing innocent animals solely for the satisfaction of one's own selfish, misguided desire for a warm, savory broth.

I suspect the editors publish these recipes and the resultant letters for their amusement (I certainly find them amusing).  They usually remind these outraged readers intoxicated with vegetarianism that the Dalai Lama eats meat (which contains the intoxicating notion that this is some official Buddhist imprimatur for meat-eating, but that's neither here nor there) in their editorial reply.  I imagine (but do not know) that there are people out there who have summarily canceled their Tricycle magazine subscriptions over a chicken soup recipe.  As a see this precept, this action would be a violation of it.

Similarly, there are people on very limited incomes who will miss their rent payments next month because of a first-of-the-month bender when the social security check arrives.  This is also a violation of this precept.  I know of a pastor in a small Baptist church in Texas who dismissed his own niece from the congregation and from further association with his immediate family because she admitted to seriously considering a premarital affair.  This banishment is also a violation of this precept.

In each of these cases, someone attached themselves to a notion or an experience so tightly that they caused harm.  Toxins cause harm.  The fundamental moral guidance for me in my life is to live for the benefit of all beings (NB: I did not say "all other beings").  This seems wholly consistent with my direct experience of Reality.  Harmony is our natural state of existence.

So, what I think the use of the concept of intoxication in this precept points towards is this notion that when there is something that when present in some measure may bring some comfort one must be careful.  This very same thing, be it bourbon, vegetarianism, or Buddhism, can also be indulged in to the point where it becomes poisonous and harmful.  The problem isn't out there.  Addiciton is not dissolved in bourbon, it is contained within the mind.  Intoxication is not non-tee-totaling.  As any honest student of a 12-step program will tell you, a dry drunk is still a drunk.  I find a modicum of comfort in the warmth and relaxation found by sipping a limited quantity of bourbon from time to time, this is not intoxication.

However, I also know people for whom even a single sip of bourbon seemingly inevitably brings about a cascade of events in their life that is harmful.  They should not drink bourbon in any amount.  I have a similar relationship with jelly beans.  I seem unable to consume them in moderation, I will continue eating them until they are gone, no matter what quantity I have on hand, so I don't consume them at all.  That seems like a silly example, but I used to be a rather severe diabetic, jelly beans were just as serious a situation for me as bourbon was for my friends who can't consume it in moderation.  There are no absolutes here, really.

I don't offer my alcoholic friends a drink.  I also don't lecture people endlessly about the wisdom of zen practice, or about how much I support a particular political persuasion.  I used to do each of these things, I've made mistakes just as you have, but I seek to return to a state of being I enjoyed, and still can enjoy, before I grasp hold of the notion that alcohol is always okay, or zen practice is always wise, or that arch conservatives are always greedy hatemongers.  There is a place one can exist before these notions arise, and one can return to that place at any time.  This is also called Reality, some call it by other names, but it is always available to us at all time.  It marks the Way,

So, a follower of the Way does not intoxicate oneself or others.