致關心中研院的朋友,晚安:
首先,謝謝大家的關心。相信大家相當憂心本院出現境外移入的群聚感染。不過,請各位朋友毋需過度焦慮。我們已經掌握相關接觸者,並提高防疫措施的強度。確診者所屬工作場域的同仁即日起居家辦公二周,待無虞後再回院工作。其餘同仁若有不適,也建議在家休息或工作,勿輕忽大意。
我明白隨著案例增加,大家心情難免忐忑。窺探的慾望也讓我們急於掀開確診者隱私的面紗。但是避而不談、隱入人群,也使我們容易傳散謠言、互相猜疑。二者皆有盲點。如何求取平衡,是社會在這場疫情中進步與否的關鍵課題。
疫情帶給世界的挑戰接踵而至,但是迎戰病毒,我們並非全然無知、束手無策。除了努力以科學研究找出答案外,我們也應發揮人溺己溺的精神,互相關懷、彼此鼓勵。切勿以文字語言傷害到確診案例所屬單位之同仁或其家屬。越困難的時刻越要理性、互相幫忙,珍惜人際間的良善與信任。
也許我們對不可預測的疫情發展不免恐懼,但我認為,戰勝恐懼的解方是獲取知識。我們應該主動了解病毒如何傳播、如何致病。若你有興趣,再進一步了解病毒如何演化,病毒與人類又是什麼關係。善用最近多一些的居家時間,靜心充實知識也不失為一件好事。
認識病毒、釐清疫情的同時,我們也應該展現人性的光輝及真誠,互助合作並包容可能有的人性弱點。對異議者耐心溝通、解釋,對確診者給予最大的關懷及支持。
病毒帶來全新的考驗,我們必須在有限的資訊與時間內做出困難的抉擇,這不僅激勵我們需要進一步以研究追求知識,也同時測驗我們的智慧,更提醒我們如何超越自我,把無私與人道的精神帶給社會。
這段時間大家都辛苦了,再次謝謝各界捎來的問候與關懷。新冠肺炎病毒正在挑戰人類知識的邊界,卻也給人類有機會重新省思人、社會、國家及環境的互動關係。路阻且長,繼續努力。保護自己,同理他人。
祝 平安健康
中央研究院院長 廖俊智 20200322
____________
To all our friends,
First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for all the concern you have shown towards Academia Sinica. I understand that everyone is very concerned about the cluster infection resulting from an imported case. Nonetheless, we have been able to track down people who had contact with this individual and have implement enhanced epidemic control measures, so there is no need to be overly concerned. All colleagues sharing a workplace with the confirmed case have started working from home for two weeks until further notice. Other colleagues are also advised to stay home for work or rest should they feel any sort of discomfort.
I understand that as the number of cases arises so do the unease and fear within us all. Although we might bear an urge to unveil the privacy of the confirmed case, avoiding the subject altogether leads to speculation, rumor, and distrust. Each course of action leaves much to be desired. Therefore, it is critical to reach a balance between both options. The decisions we make will mark our progress as a mature society in battling against the virus.
The outbreak of this epidemic has brought relentless challenges to our world, yet in this struggle we are neither clueless nor without power. Apart from striving to find solutions through scientific research, we should also consider this an opportunity to show our solidarity through caring and reaching out to encourage each other. Please refrain from any verbal attacks related to the confirmed cases, colleagues from the same institute, and family members. It is during these darkest of times that we should do our utmost to maintain a sense of reason, support each other, and treasure the trust in our own humanity.
While it may be inevitable that we experience fear as this unpredictable epidemic unfolds, in my opinion the key to our victory is the accumulation of greater knowledge. We should take the initiative to learn about how the virus spreads and infects others, and if you are interested how it evolves plus its relations with human beings. It might not be a bad idea to make good use of the extra time at home in recent days to nourish oneself with such knowledge.
As we become more familiar with this virus and clarify the facts about the epidemic, we should also manifest the sincerity and brilliance of our human nature, work together in earnest collaboration and show enduring tolerance for any possible flaws. Let us patiently communicate with those who disagree, and show the greatest support for people with confirmed cases.
The virus has confronted us with a completely new set of challenges, and we must make very difficult decisions with limited information and time. This not only impels us to exceed our limits in scientific pursuits but also tests our wisdom in the face of adversity while reminding us to share our selfless spirit with society.
It has been a tough fight, and we are all in this together. Once again, I would like to thank the public for its warm regards. While testing the limits of human knowledge, the coronavirus also allows us to reflect upon the links between individuals, society, the nation, and the environment. A long and perilous journey lies ahead, so let us persist in our efforts, protecting ourselves while sympathizing with others.
With Warmest Wishes for Peace and Good Health,
James C. Liao
Academia Sinica President
refrain oneself 在 蘇浩 Anthony So Facebook 的最佳貼文
I still don’t understand why they are in dialogue with China
A response to “Why we are in dialogue with China”, the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Parolin gave to Gianni Valente (that is, an interview cooked up between the two).
I read the interview several times, now I read it again (even if the reading repels me) in order to honestly make my comments.
I am grateful to His Eminence for recognizing that “it is legitimate to have different opinions”.
(1)
First of all, we note the insistence with which His Eminence affirms that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are of a pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting is only in a political key.
What we see instead is that he venerates the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his master Casaroli and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles from any interference by secular power.
I will never forget my amazement at reading a report in the Osservatore Romano a few years ago on a speech that he had given where he describes the heroes of the faith in the central European countries under the communist regime (Card. Wyszynsky, Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, without mentioning them) as “gladiators”, “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage”.
(2)
We also note the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he has absolutely no respect for all of this at all (they are “gladiators”!)
He also speaks of wounds that are still open and his intention to treat them by applying “the balm of mercy”. But what wounds is he talking about?
Towards the end of the interview, at one point he says: “To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation”.
So he knows very well that in the Church in China it is not (if not infrequently) a case of personal offenses or resentments, but persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? It is not a question of personal offenses to be forgiven. It is a slavery from which to free oneself.
Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Rewarding traitors? Castigating the faithful? Forcing a legitimate bishop to give way to an excommunicated one? It this not more like rubbing salt on these still open wounds?
Let us return to the “objective situation”. The painful state was not created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this enslavement, there are those who suffer, unfortunately there are those who embrace it.
Faced with this reality is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, conflict, compromise, giving in, surrender, betrayal”?
Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are the conditions right? Where is this unity? How can we collaborate? Thus, we must analyse the two fundamental points that need clarification.
(3)
What is the unity you want to achieve?
a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and states that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China”. If I’m not mistaken, I was the first to affirm this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, because, in both communities, the faithful in their hearts are loyal to the Pope (today with the increasing number of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply this affirmation to the entire Church in China).
But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter on which Jesus established his Church, the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church subject to its power.
b) Eliminating this division and achieving unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with one wave of a magic wand, let alone by manipulating the Letter of Pope Benedict.
In the Letter by Pope Emeritus there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church's life. “Father Jeroom Heyndrickx citing out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life,” has made it his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “there should be no more underground communities, everyone must come to the open and become part of the community subject to the Government”.
In the Commission for the Church in China we pointed out this grave error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ignored this warning, obviously supporting Father Heyndrickx’ theory.
It was only two years later, when this mistake had already done immense damage, that we managed to include some notes in the “Compendium” booklet to try to distinguish the reconciliation of hearts from unity in structures.
c) Parolin says that one should not maintain “a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures”. But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under Government power, which certainly exercises control over it and shows no sign of giving it up.
Pope Benedict says that the journey of unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).
But our diplomats want a miracle and they want it now, and not only. They also accuse others of clinging “to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures” and of not being ready “to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective”.
These are really cruel reproaches to address to faithful members of the Church, who for many years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!
When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and on our part one wants unity at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “bird’s cage”.
d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will this encourage people to walk together? To embark on a new path? With serenity? With confidence?
It is said that it will be a gradual process, but let us suppose that the authors already have the next steps to be taken after the legitimization of the illegitimate in mind.
What will become of those Bishops who are legitimate according to the law of the Church but who are not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, admitted to the cage? Will it finally be “a” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)
Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. You can endure and suffer an evil (damage), but you can never do wrong (sin), great or small.
Our suffering at the creation of a schismatic Church by others may be inevitable, but we cannot assist in its creation.
Moreover, a schismatic church created by the party is not a cause for fear, it will fade with the fall of the regime. Instead, a schismatic church with the Pope's blessing would be horrifying!
(4)
Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?
With reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).
a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but possible, because it depends only on our goodwill, dialogue with the Government is more difficult.
b) Pope Francis in Seoul had said: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one's own identity.”
It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and let it be known where we want to arrive, that is, what our conscience dictates as a desirable outcome to dialogue. In our case, obviously it is: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but favours the true good of the nation”.
Will we be able to manage this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there at least a minimum foundation to hope in the present situation when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and overbearing than ever? When, both its words and actions point to an even more rigorous control of every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.
The Communists no longer feel the need to save appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (The joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference is [always] led by a government official”) The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” for compassion for those who find themselves not of their own will under severe pressure.
From what we can observe see, the Holy See is acquiescing to this unacceptable reality. (Is it really sure that this is for the good of the Church?)
In order for a dialogue to be true, it must start from a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our own seems to start from a position of weakness. Reliable source says that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop James Su Zhi Min who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because our interlocutors refused. In my opinion, our delegation should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling down to them from the outset.
After all we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That they have churches and cathedrals in various places? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they say Masses in private homes so as not to be disturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018 we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of these our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that by now it also has the consent of the Holy See.
c) While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely rude gesture it dismissed the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China set up by Pope Benedict without so much as a word. The only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican was Archbishop Savio, sending him as Nuncio to Greece. So much for “finding synthesis of truth”! So much for “discovering God's plan together”! They are convinced that they “have considered everything properly”.
(5)
The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of expressions of the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear as if he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for 'Evangelization of the Peoples have thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back on the right path.
At the beginning and end of the interview he made two citations respectively.
a) In Chapter 4 Paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.. “
b) In Paragraph 6 he had said: (Citing “Deus caritas est”) “The Church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice..”
In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.
(6)
Given the recent controversies, I feel the desire to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.
It is true that my revelations of a private interviews may have caused him embarrassment and for this I am sorry. But I am still convinced that there is a void between the way of thinking of His Holiness and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who readily take advantage of the Pope's optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from the responsibility of the erroneous judgement of his collaborators and that he has communicated his encouragement to my brothers in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep water”.
If, by chance, one day a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to “monastic life”. Certainly as a son, even if unworthy, of Don Bosco I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.
Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord will preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”
refrain oneself 在 玳瑚師父 Master Dai Hu Facebook 的精選貼文
《互相尊重的認知》
Understanding Mutual Respect (English version below)
吾有兩位女學生,犯了佛教的「不飲酒」戒。
一位30歲左右的,說是公司聚會,上司一直叫她喝,不好拒絕。吾弟子問她,明明是白領佳人,難不成還得兼職「陪酒小姐」?
這位學生,也因爲飲酒,而多次欺騙老公與公婆,說是在公司加班。
另一位學生是位中年婦女。她受老闆之託,旅行回國時幫老闆買酒。她也說,不懂得如何拒絕老闆。
這位中年婦女與吾皈依同一位根本上師,當代法王蓮生活佛,卻藐視根本上師的教義,忤逆吾的教誨。她從不好好閱讀根本上師的文集與開示,一直祇求吾以風水八字來解決她家人的問題,治標不治本。
因此,她忽略了師佛近期的開示:「拿酒給人喝,犯了不飲酒戒,五百世沒有手。」
(如蚯蚓等動物。)
這兩位學生,同樣的都沒告訴老闆她們的戒律。
妳自己都不尊敬妳的信仰,不會有人尊重妳的信仰。
如果妳不開妳的金口,介紹妳信仰的戒律給他人,他人又怎麼知道妳有這條戒律呢?
如果說出來了,他自然不會叫妳買酒或帶妳去喝酒。
自己要先有守戒的精神。如果妳沒有,妳一定也是爲了不好意思或怕炒魷魚,就這樣犯戒。
這個世界上不是只有一份工作可以做。
如果妳明知故犯,折了這個福,妳認為妳未來還會有好的發展嗎?
我們所要的一切都是建立在德。
天,因爲有德,所以常覆,地有德,所以常載,日月星有德,所以常照。
人要有德,才能夠常順、常旺、常樂。
妳不能說妳怕拒絕,以免什麼會發生在妳身上。東家不打打西家,人要有志氣,要有守戒的精神,才會得善神的擁護。
妳自己都不尊重妳的信仰,試問人家怎麼會尊重妳的信仰呢?他看妳也不過是那種人,可能暗地裡還瞧不起妳,覺得妳外表說妳已皈依,原來妳根本沒有皈依,還是犯戒。
千萬不要這樣做。
做爲一個老闆,一個上司,必須要以德服人。下屬因爲是你的員工,她當然不敢得罪你,冒犯你,因爲她需要這個薪水來養家或過活。就算她爲了順從你,而犯戒,你在她心中的形象一定大打折扣。如果有一天,她有了另外一份工作邀約,她一定不考慮就走,因爲她覺得你是一個敗德的上司,不值得她忠心。
如果她留下來,那必定只有一個原因,因爲她也敗德。敗德的上司 + 敗德的下屬,能做出什麼好成績來?
學佛人,得懂得匡正自己,也匡正別人,所以必須得解釋給妳老闆,或任何不明白的人,妳你爲何會拒絕他做某樣事情,尤其是買賣酒、買賣煙、買賣色情刊物等等。
大家要明白什麼叫戒律,戒律不是有宗教信仰的人,才要守的律法。戒律是一個正人君子的準則,是止惡揚善的基礎,根本沒有分誰應該守。
只要是人,都必須守。走在正道上,沒有過失下,才不會損失我們的福德。
那位中年婦女的老闆,「勸」吾的學生不必執著戒律,佛陀不是說斷執著嗎?
沒有皈依學佛的,千萬不要不懂裝懂,以免斷人慧命,造了殺生業。
佛陀涅槃時,阿難問佛:「佛在世時,我們以佛為師,佛滅度後大眾以何為師呢?」
佛言:「以戒為師。」
喝酒,會亂人本性,生出無量的過失,如酒後駕駛、醉酒打人、儀態盡失、胡言亂語、淫慾熾盛、惡人相近等等。
一位老客人,七旬老翁,生性節儉。一家大小雖是佛教徒,老翁卻酗酒成性。長子乃吾弟子,之前爲了迎合父親要求,常買酒「供養」他。
後來,媳婦(也是吾弟子也)顧及老翁的健康和戒律,阻止先生助紂為虐,也勸其家婆、小姑和弟弟不要買酒,卻惹來老翁辱罵長子:「沒有用!」
事隔數年,老翁喝壞了身體,今年年中入院開刀。吾於心不忍,以玄學來幫助這位老客人能早日康復。
喝酒的人愚癡,送酒的人愚孝。
吾,玳瑚師父,滴酒不沾,任何有酒精的食物,吾也不食。不飲酒者,有何果報?
意念清明,智慧超群,不會精神分裂、不會神智恍惚、不會胡思亂想,更不會被迷惑。
⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯
2 of my female students flouted the Buddhism precept of abstinence from alcohol.
One of them, in her early 30s, told me that it was a company gathering, and her supervisor egged her to drink. She could not refuse. My disciple asked her, isn't it absurd that as a white-collared employee, she has to "part-time" as a drinking hostess?
This student of mine also lied to her husband and parents-in-laws numerous times, that she was working overtime when, in fact, she was out drinking.
Another student of mine is a middle-aged lady, who was requested by her superior to buy duty-free alcohol on her return from travelling. She also told me that she did not know how to say no to her boss.
This lady, like me, took refuge under the same Root Guru, Living Buddha Lian Sheng. However, she blantantly ignored His Teachings and my reminders. She did not diligently read the Dharma books and discourses from our Root Guru Master, yet always sought my help in Feng Shui and Bazi to solve her family woes. This is not solving the root causes at all.
Hence, she missed out on a recent Dharma discourse by our Root Guru: If you give alcohol to others, you are breaking the precept of abstinence from alcohol, and the consequence is 500 rebirths without limbs.
(Eg. like a millipede)
These 2 students did not tell their superiors of their precepts.
If you do not respect your own faith, nobody will give your faith the due respect too.
If you don't break your silence and let others know about the precepts in your religion, how would others know about your precept on abstinence from alcohol?
If you voice it out, naturally your superior will not ask you to buy alcohol nor bring you along for drinking sessions.
You must first have the spirit to uphold the precepts, lacking which you will be easily swayed by situations such as embarrassment or fear of losing your job, and eventually flouting the precepts.
There is more than one job for you in this world.
If you flout the precepts intentionally, and lose your merits, what good future do you think is left for you?
Our merit and virtues are the source of all that we desire.
The Heavens and Earth have virtues , therefore can encompass all. The Sun, moon and the stars have virtues, hence their never ending radiance.
Man must have virtues, in order to enjoy peace, prosperity and bliss.
You cannot give the excuse that you fear the consequence of saying no. There is always another job out there. A person must have higher aspirations, and the willpower to observe the precepts in order to be blessed by the virtuous gods.
If you do not respect your own faith, how would another person respect it? He will not be impressed, and may even secretly despise you for being a hypocrite in taking refuge, as you are not steadfast in upholding your precepts.
Do not ever do this.
As a boss, as a superior, you must command the respect of your subordinates with your merits and virtues. It is natural that your subordinate will not dare to offend you because she needs the job and salary to make a living or feed their families.
Even if she follow your instructions, at the expense of flouting her precepts, deep in her heart, she will think lesser of you. If one day she receives another job offer, she will not hesitate to leave you because she feel that you are lacking in virtues and unworthy of her loyalty.
If she stays on, then it must be for the reason that she too is lacking in virtues. A non-virtuous superior + a non-virtuous employee, what good result can they produce?
A practicing Buddhist must learn to correct oneself, and others. Therefore, you need to explain to you boss, or any other people who do not understand your rationale, why you refuse to help him/her in certain things such as buying alcohol, cigarettes, R-rated publications, etc.
Everyone must understand what exactly precepts are. It is not applicable solely to people with a religious faith. Precepts are the cornerstone of a upright and righteous human being. They are the foundation of spreading goodness and curbing the non-virtuous in us, and applicable to every one of us
As long as you are human, you should observe the precepts. Walking on the right path, and not committing any sin, will ensure that our merits are not taken away.
The boss of my middle-aged student "advised" her not to be too attached to the precepts. Didn't Buddha proclaim non-attachment? So said the boss.
If one has not taken refuge and properly learn the Dharma, please do not behave like a know-it-all and dish out irresponsible "advice" to others. This grave act of recklessness may destroy the life of wisdom in the listener, akin to the act of killing.
When Lord Buddha was about to enter Nirvana, his disciple, Ananda, asked, "When the Buddha is in this world, He is revered as our Teacher. But when the Buddha enters Nirvana, who should we follow as our Teacher?"
Buddha expounded: "I have already given you the precepts. The precepts are your teacher".
Drinking alcohol will create chaos to the human nature, and countless sins arise, such as drunk driving, drunk fighting, loss of etiquette, blabbering of nonsense, sexual indecency, attracting bad company, etc.
An old client of mine, in his 70s, lives frugally. Together with his wife and children, they are Buddhists. However, the elderly man is an alcoholic.
His eldest son is my disciple. Previously, to make his father happy, he would buy him liquor and beer whenever the elderly man asks for it.
Subsequently, his wife (also my disciple) prevented him from buying alcohol, out of consideration for the elderly man's health and their precepts. They also told the mother and younger siblings to refrain from buying.
However, all the eldest son got was a bellow of "Useless son!" from the elderly man.
A few years later, alcoholism took a toil on the old man and he was warded for an operation in the middle of this year.
I pitied him and helped him towards a smoother recovery with my Metaphysics abilities.
Deluded is the man who drinks.
Ignorant is the filial piety of the children who feed his alcoholism.
I have abstained from intoxicants for over a decade, and neither do I consume food with alcohol in it.
What are the merits from such abstinence?
Beside mental clarity and supreme wisdom, one will not be stricken with schizophrenia, mental disarray, mental disturbance and fall prey to temptations.