There are a few things you can check with you keg.

You said it's a home built system, yes?

So is this a mini-fridge conversion, chest freezer/keezer conversion, or some other kit?

Anyway, what length are the beer lines?

Generally you need to balance CO2 pressure against beer lines to avoid consistently foamy pours.

If your system isn't properly balanced the beer will always be foamy, on every pour.

I have 5-6 foot lines in my kegerator and it works pretty well for me, when I was having foamy pour problems everyone suggested replacing them with 10 foot lines just to make damn sure the pour wasn't too violent.

Also making sure the lines are clean.

Any beer stone or other sediment in the lines is going to cause foam.

Serving warmer with lower CO2 would also be a better step.

One frustrating thing about these sorts of adjustments is that it takes time for equilibrium to be hit.

So if you lower the CO2 pressure, the headspace is still pressurize.

You'll need to vent the keg via the pressure release valve.

Same deal with raising the temperature.

Once the beer actually comes up to the new temp, there will have been CO2 driven out of solution that you need to vent from the headspace via the pressure release valve.

It's a pain.

Regulators will also often have their own pressure valve, which you should poke and vent slightly when setting the pressure...especially when coming down since excess pressure in the system is going to mess with the reading.

So vent, watch it rise to the actual pressure, then adjust, vent again, and watch.

It takes some time but generally once you set it

there's very little change required.

It's hard to tell without seeing the speed of your pour.

Definitely check the keg temperature itself.

As a homebrewer I reuse kegs, so I have stickers on all my kegs that have a little temperature line.

These liquid crystal thermometers, like this one , are pretty cheap.

You can also check the ambient temperature using a regular thermometer and a small glass of water.

You should check temperature at multiple spots inside the kegerator, so you could fill some tumblers or shot glasses with water and place them at the bottom of the kegerator, then maybe on top of the keg, and then maybe a back shelf if you have anything like that.

This lets you know if you have any hot spots which you can reduce by reorganizing tubes or tossing a small computer case fan in there.

Also, if you haven't disabled the dome light in the fridge, do so or find some way to make sure the switch stays down beyond a doubt.

When I first built my kegerator I was getting incredibly foamy pours and

a huge contributor wound up being the dome light kept coming on and heating up the tops of the kegs and the beer in my lines.

Another final check is the temperature inside of the tower.

If you have no way for the cold air to get from the body of the fridge into the tower the lines in the tower will get warm and cause foamy beer, though if the CO2 pressure is set correctly, this would likely only result in the first 1-2 pours being foamy, then it calms down until the lines warm back up.

A lot of people will put fans or run copper tubes up the towers.

I filled mine with insulation.

You were right to lower the temperature.

Beer (or any liquid for that matter) is better at retaining gasses at lower temperatures.

Therefore: cold beer = less gas released = less foam produced.

Occam's Razor says your keg is probably warm.

I'd check if your temperature is correct.

Make sure the temperature is being checked from the bottom of the keg, as this is where your beer is coming from.

I'm assuming you're pouring properly,

(this includes using a clean, unfrozen glass with a smooth interior).

Aside from that, I'd make sure all the parts of your system are clean and in good working order.

Another something to look at: your beerline.

Check for flaws, sharp bends, particles.

Check your taps as well, as an imperfection there might cause the problem.

I found an awesome resource: Draft Beer Quality .

They have a very nifty pdf

Manual that you can download for free!

Lots of good, in-depth answers here.

It looks like nobody (edit: looks like Soloem did, actually) mentioned the obvious: close your supply line and bleed excess CO2 from the keg.

Sometimes a keg will come to you highly carbonated and you just have to bleed it.

Sometimes you have to bleed it a few times (before you begin dispensing for the day).

As long as you don't have some physical problem with your setup (long lines, warm temps, leaks or something crazy)

you're just facing an over-pressurized keg.

Question: Have a kegerator home built system for 1/2 barrel beer in the garage. Recently had a keg of beer that was foamy no matter what we tried to do. Served it low temp, 37 degrews, and almost no CO2 pressure. Tried serving warmer, with more pressure, still tons of foam.

How do you tame a 'foamy' keg?

Generally you need to balance CO2 pressure against beer lines to avoid consistently foamy pours.  The keg may need venting to bleed off the excess CO2. It is also important to check the lines and taps are clean, Finally, the temperature should be checked, the keg may be too warm and cold beer releases less gas.

The keg could have arrived in an overpressurised state, and can be bled to bring the pressure down. Check your beerline and taps for imperfections and sediment. Longer lines may also help to reduce foam. Check the temperature of the keg at a few points (especially below, where the beer will be drawn) as well as the ambient temperature around it. Make sure that the dome light is not turning on and warming the keg.


To add a bit of detail to the existing answers, the primary method for adding a smoked flavor to beer is by using malts that have been dried over a smoky fire, rather than in a kiln which allows the malt to absorb compounds from the smoke that they then release into the beer during brewing.

Some of the oldest smoked beers still produced are German (Rauchbiers) and the malt is dried over beechwood .

Other woods can be used, and you can find malt smoked over oak, cherrywood, and any number of other species.

As mentioned in another answer, peat can be used as well and in fact is for Stone's Smoked Porter .

Another method for adding a smoky flavor is to use liquid smoke extract .

This is made my cooling and condensing smoke with water, and can be used instead of smoked malt.

I'm not aware of commercial brewers who use this method, but it's a way for home brewers who use malt extract instead of dried malt to add smokiness to their beers.

Peated malt can provide a beer with subtle smokiness.

Peated malt is malt that has been smoked over peat (decaying vegetation).

This is common in Scotch & Whisky Ales.

Cheers

It is certainly possible to make a smoked beer by using a smoked malt at the brewing stage.

Excellent information here:

Brewing Smoked Beers: Tips from the Pros.

Smoked malts.

Start with a normal malt put malt in a large metal screen COLD smoke for a few hours (if you add heat it will also add color to the malt)

Let sit for a day or so.

brew beer with it enjoy something not many get to taste, yet alone the possibilities of different woods to use for the smoking make it an unused "5th" beer ingredient.

How to Smoke Malts Woods to use for smoking cherry apple maple mesquite pecan other fruitwoods alder (alaskan) beechwood

(Rauchbeir) OAK is usually used raw, added as "barrelling" addition not normally used to smoke malts NEVER USE EVERGREEN WOOD FOR SMOKING MALT.

- PINEY (HOP TERRITORY)

Smoke-Flavored/Wood-Aged Beer Peat malt is bad stuff-

only used for scotch and whiskey mashes.

DO NOT USE IT IN BEER unless you want to throw it out.

One other potential source of smoke flavors is actually the yeast.

Some yeast produce phenolic compounds during fermentation that produce smoke flavors and aromas.

Scottish yeast strains in particular are known for this.

One source of smokiness unmentioned as of yet is vinvyl-guaiacol production from bacteria metabolism.

The answers already given are more relevant, however there is one important source that has been unmentioned.

Although more common in distilling, lactobacillus and other strains of bacteria can attribute flavor to fermentation products.

Different strains induce a different, possibly harmful, effect.

Focusing on lactobacillus, which is your common bacteria used in cheese making, lactobacillus can introduce more lactic acid into the beer.

This anaerobic bacteria is more active either before fermentation has started (either by contamination or inoculation) and after fermentation has ended.

More so after fermentation this bacteria has metabolize the autolysis products of yeast.

The acids from this bacteria later form into vinvyl-guaiacol, a flavor compound that lends a spicy and smokey note.

Question: I recently started getting interested in smoked beers. Quite a few years back, Shiner had a seasonal called Smokehouse. I didn't care for it. However, I've recently been intrigued by varieties of smoked saisons, ipas and marzenbiers. What makes a beer smoky? Is the flavor created by casking, adding flavor or part of the brewing process?

What gives a "smoky" beer a smoked flavor?

Beer may get a smoky flavor from various sources, such as smoked malts, liquid smoke extract, the yeast itself and bacteria.

Malt smoked with different woods or peat can be used to add a smoky flavour during brewing. Liquid smoke can also be used as an alternative, especially for home brewers. Particular types of yeast can also pruduce smoke-like flavours and aromas, as can lactobacillus and other strains of bacteria.


Mead is not considered a style of beer, since the sugars in mead come from honey, not from the starch of a grain.

Hops are sometimes added to mead for flavor and as a preservative.

The process for making mead is more similar to wine making than brewing beer.

There's no brewing (boiling) stage necessary in making mead.

All of the fermentable sugar comes from the honey in mead, so you just mix honey with water (and whatever spices you want) and go directly to the fermenting stage.

Mead also has a higher alcohol content than most beers (8 - 20%, which is more similar to wine, or even brandy). ...

would it be reasonable to think a brewery I like may make, or consider making mead as well?

Not really.

At least not in the U.S.

Beer is much more popular than mead, and the process for making mead is different, so relatively few brewers are going to make it.

I tried mead once at a specialty beer & wine store, which is your best bet for finding it in the U.S.

You may have to ask around to see if a store can order some for you.

In addition to what was already said, there's a lot of legal gray area, as most if not all states have different laws governing breweries and wineries.

Mead is really something different than both, but I believe most meaderies choose to identify as wineries, and many if not all states prohibit wineries from having malt on premises, and breweries MUST use malt in fermentation.

You'd either need to find someone that has a license for both beer and wine, which probably isn't that common in commercial operations

(brewpubs may be your best bet there), or look for someone who makes a braggot, which is generally a beer/mead blend.

Dogfish Head makes Bitches' Brew, and Sprecher Brewery just released a braggot this year.

If you're looking to buy, wine shops are generally a better bet - again, lots of people don't know exactly what to do with mead, but I've had good luck finding it, usually around the dessert wines, sherry, port type of wines.

Mead is an entirely different product which tastes more like a wine than a beer but is quite distinct from either in terms of taste, designation and production.

I have never come across a mead flavoured with hops but some are flavoured with other botanicals such as spices or orange peel

so I cannot guarantee that none are.

Most beer breweries undertake a more complex brewing process involving adding ingredients to the mash at different stages and as such, knowing a few hundred UK brewers as I do, they are all about getting the complex mixture correct and blending ingredients correctly they are disinterested in the simple mead making process.

That said the mead making process; adding honey to water, adding yeast and letting it ferment may be boring to them

it doesn't mean that none do, but I have never known any to be interested.

On the other hand some wineries in the UK have their own beehives to help pollinate their fruit and so they produce mead as a side product.

This may also be true in the US.

A quick search bears out my thoughts on wineries in the US: Where to buy Mead .

Simplified definition: If you're fermenting grains, it's beer.

If you're fermenting fruits, it's wine.

If you're fermenting honey, it's mead.

It's not really that simple, because there are beers that use fruit (e.g., cherry lambic, raspberry wheat),

beers that use honey (it's a fairly common adjunct), wines that use fruit (e.g., elderberry wine ), and a whole lot of meads that use fruit.

The crossover is substantial.

When you consider hard ciders, it gets even more complicated (is apple wine really a cider?).

The base ingredient of beer is almost always malted barley.

Even beers named for another grain — like wheat beer, oatmeal stout, rye beer — use malted barley as a base.

Hops are a critical ingredient in beer for two reasons: bittering and aroma.

The base ingredient of mead is always honey.

I've had mead with hops ( Charm City makes one), but it's uncommon, and I personally don't like the flavor.

It's more common to find a winery that makes mead than a brewery that makes mead.

There's an outstanding one in Montana called Hidden Legend .

They also make a mead/wine blend called a "pyment," which was popular in the 15th century or so.

Mead is its own thing but often will be called “Honey Wine” but it is never an ale or beer.

The process it’s made from is pretty much a wine-making process

but there are a few differences leading to the fact that some places list their meads and honey wines together and others list them separately.

Technically mead is its own category, but it’s basically a sibling to wine not beer.

It’s fermented not brewed.

Beer is more of a cousin to it.

Mead in some European countries is one of the stronger alcohol beverages you could get reaching 50%.

(Apart from pure spirit of course) some people consider mead to be medicine rather than alcoholic beverage.

Some people might say mead is part of beer but they are wrong and confusing yeast and sugar getting fermented with actual mead.

Some European countries defines mead as "The savory materials were given up by honey, carnation blossoms, poplar buds, oak acorns, juniper berries, and many other valuable herbs.

Rich taupe color is reached by the use of natural blueberry, black currant and raspberry juice.

This drink of great aroma and taste is of 50 % alcohol by volume"

Question: From my understanding, mead is primarily made from honey and may or may not have hops added.Is mead considered a style of beer, or more of a wine, or a completely separate kind of beverage?  Are they brewed similarly? More specifically, would it be reasonable to think a brewery I like may make, or consider making mead as well?

What are the differences between mead and beer? Where can I try one in the US?

Everyone is clear that mead is closer to wine than beer. The process for making mead is more similar to wine making than brewing beer. There's no brewing (boiling) stage necessary in making mead. All of the fermentable sugar comes from the honey in mead, so you just mix honey with water (and whatever spices you want) and go directly to the fermenting stage. Fermenting fruits makes wine; fermenting honey makes mead. However, nobody really seems to know where you could try mead in the US.

Mead is much closer to wine than beer in its taste and production, and there is no brewing process involved in mead production. Some wineries have beehives and prudce mead as a side product, but mead from beer breweries is much less common. Breweries and wineries are subject to different laws, so a brewery wanting to produce mead might need to be licensed for both beer and wine. Some mead is made with hops for flavouring, but this is rare and not essential as in beer production.


According to the Beer Advocate website , Romulan Ale from Star Trek is brewed by Cervecería Centro Americana in South Africa.

A search in Google Images will produce several images of the bottles.

I have included a link to one image.

Romulan Ale

While I'm not a fan Butterbeer from Harry Potter is apparently a thing.

However I don't believe it's widely available and is pretty niche by the looks of it.

Olde Frothingslosh started as a joke.

Not quite from a book, but possibly of interest.

Olde Frothingslosh Pale Stale Ale

Discworld Ales have a range of drinks inspired by the Terry Pratchett novels!

I've not tasted any myself

but they were well received as a gift.

Duff Beer

"Duff Beer is a brand of beer that originally started as a fictional beverage on the animated series The Simpsons.

Since then it has become a real brand of beer in a number of countries without permission or consent from its original creator, Matt Groening, and has resulted in legal battles with varying results.

An official version of the beer is sold in three variations near The Simpsons Ride at Universal Studios."

- Duff Beer (Wikipedia)

Dagschotel

In Belgium, there's a tv-show that's been running for 20 years.

One of the characters always orders a "dagschotel" (french: plat du jour, english: the dish of the day) when he orders a glass of beer.

A few weeks ago, some brewery makes bottles of Dagschotel.

In Germany there is a famous comic book beer called Bölkstoff .They also began producing it

but nowadays it's rare, but you can get it online.

There are films about Werner where he drinks this specific beer.

Rötger Feldmann is the author of these comic books and films.

You can find info here and here much more on the German wikipedia page.

If you have further questions about the films or the beer, feel free to ask.

There is also a BreakingBad based beer that you can find here Schraderbräu is a homebrew beer brewed by Hank Schrader.

He is seen bottling the beer in Breakage, the fifth episode of season 2.

He offers a six-pack of the beer as a prize in a fundraiser in ABQ, the thirteenth episode of season 2.

Question: Duff  is the only one of which I am aware. I know there are  Game of Thrones  inspired brews, but are there any others that originated from works of fiction?

What other beer brands began as fictional but eventually became real?

A few beers started life as fictional. These include Romulan Ale from Star Trek, Butterbeer from Harry Potter, Olde Frothingslosh, Discworld Ales inspired by Terry Pratchett novels, Dagschotel and Bölkstoff .

Romulan Ale from Star Trek, Butterbeer from Harry Potter, Olde Frothingslosh, several drinks inspired by Terry Pratchett novels produced by Discworld Ales, Duff Beer, Dagschotel and Bölkstoff are all inspired by fictional beers.


If you're in the South West, then it's definitely worth checking out Otter Brewery (a really good range with a cracking bitter).

Also Abbey Ales are the only ales actually brewed in Bath, not to say that Bath Ales aren't great, but this is real Bath ale!

Depending how far SW you go, Exeter Brewery's Avocet Ale is a nice drop that you can have a really good session with.

Hope this helps!

Have you tried Wickwar Brewery ?

If you like darker beers, the Station Porter is one of the best I have ever tasted.

It's got a great brewery shop and well worth a visit.

If you're really willing to push your own limits, try The Wild 's sour/wild beers.

I became aware of them last year completely by accident, in a trip to UK, and loved their Modus Operandi beer.

I also had another very light pale sour wich wasn't remarkable compared to the first one, but fairly ok.

(I guess it probably should have had more time in the bottle to develop and reach its full potential).

Sours beers are not for everyone, and the common first reaction to them is negative.

But, if one get over that first shocking experience, go on and try it again, people usually fall in love with it.

They are called Wild because they use in their fermentation process, in addition to possible other yeasts, brettanomyces yeast, also known as wild yeast, a different species, found in some kinds of wine and belgians beers (lambics, flanders red), which gives very rustic but complex and delightful aromas to the beer.

It doesn't actually makes a beer sour (it actually produces a very small amount of acid only), but "wild" beers usually have other types of what is called bugs (bacteria and other fungi) in it, which does leave a lot of acid to the final beer, making it sour.

They also have regular beers (IPA, Saison, Pale Ale), and they're almost always creative and daring on their recipes.

I guess, whether you like it or not, all their beers are worth a try, because those guys seem to take brewing very seriously and you can expect nothing less than quality stuff.

I wish I was still there to taste all their beers.

And a bonus

: they're from Evercreech, soutwest.

Look it up at their site and see what they've got.

Not a great answer since I have no specifics for you.

Going out to local bars and stores selling beer and shopping around can find you stuff, but it's expensive.

Though if you're lucky someone might be at one of these places to help you.

Another avenue might be to use something like beeradvocate.com, ratebeer.com or untappd.com to get recommendations based on how you rate beers you've had but these are only as good as other user's ratings...

They may miss a lot of small or new brands and might not necessarily recommend beers you can actually find near you.

I am pleased to add a pint that I enjoyed particularly: Firefly Bitter is an excellent 3.7% amber ale produced by Hanlons Brewery in the county of Devon.

Further, why not to try those of St. Austell from Cornwall?

Question: I would like the other beer enthusiasts to suggest some new ales for me to try. I enjoy all Bath Ales and Box Steam Brewery; I'm more a fan of a bitter and less so of pale ales.  Can you advise of any brands of a similar or superior quality I might try? (In the South West of the UK). The cheaper end of the scale (Spitfire, speckled hen) doesn't interest me.  Many thanks in advance.

Broadening my horizons (Ale recommendations in South West UK)

Otter Brewery, Abbey Ales, Exeter Brewery's Avocet Ale, Wickwar Brewery and Station Porter, Firefly Bitter produced by Hanlons Brewery and St. Austell from Cornwall are ales recommended in the South West of England

Suggestions include Otter Brewery, Abbey Ales in Bath, Exeter Brewery's Avocet Ale, Wickwar Brewery, especially their Station Porter, Firefly Bitter by Hanlon's Brewery in Devon, St. Austell in Cornwall and the wild beers produced by The Wild. For further advice, websites like beeradvocate.com, ratebeer.com or untappd.com offer recommendations by other users.

Websites like beeradvocate.com, ratebeer.com or untappd.com offer recommendations by other users.


You are correct that in countries like France and Italy, beer consumption is replaced by much higher wine consumption.

Why?

Because they can.

It's a cultural difference that has been developed and ingrained over many centuries, back to when trade was more limited and more difficult, and Northern Europe was colder than it is today.

For much of that time, the climate in Southern Europe was ideal for growing grapes and producing wine, while it was simply too cold further north.

So, Southern Europe produced and drank wine, Northern Europe produced and drank beer, thus creating regional preferences that persist even to this day.

It is curious to note that much to the chagrin of the Lowlanders some of the earliest beer history dates from the Roman empire.

These types of beers did not use hops.

The hop beers dated from 8th century and was first developed in Germany.

It was not long before the new technology in brewing spread to Neighboring Belgium and a little while there after it jumped the channel to the British island.

It is was evident from a early stage in the history of brewing that these hops where only made in a handful of places in the old world and the beer culture centered around these places.

The Goldbach Valley in western Bohemia, near the town of Saaz, and the Mittelfrüh subregion of the Hallertau being the most famous.

That being said northern Italy is busy with a nice beer renascence

In the case of France it is more or less how is says in the accepted answer.

In the case of Italy they consume in general little alcohol for European standards: List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita (Wikipedia)

This can also be observed when there (which I am a lot).

Cafes are popular which do in general also serve alcohol, but in the evening it usually remains at one drink often an Aperitif (Aperol Spritz for example) or a single beer or a glass of wine.

In the beginning most in Western Europe drank beer,the Romans however started converting to wine.

It wasn't long before the idea spread that wine was somehow more sophisticated, contrary to beer, which was only drunk by Barbarians.

After Caesars conquest of Gaul.

The Gauls were quickly romanized.

It is clear that the romanized parts drink less beer and more wine, and the Germanic area produces more beer (+ the Belgian region which were there was a lot of germanic immigration).

The reason Spain produces a lot of beer is probably because the relative dryness and infertile grounds make it not ideal to grow wine (largest area of wineyards, only third in production).

As noted in Xander's ♦ answer , it is a cultural reason as to why both France and Italy have such a lower beer consumption than their neighbors?The answer would be all too simple to say it is because they can.

Not only is it a cultural thing, it may have an historical cultural reason.

The top wine producing countries are Italy, France followed by Spain.

The reason why Spain produces less wine and beer may be due to its' drier climate.

Spain produces about 5 billion bottles of wine annually and is actually home to the largest number of vineyards of any European country.

However, its vineyards are more spread out and produce smaller yields than vineyards in France or Italy due to the drier soil common in many wine-growing regions of Spain.

Although more than 400 varieties of grapes are grown in Spain, just 20 of those account for nearly 90% of all Spanish wine production.

The 4 Countries that Produce the Most Wine Why Italy and France produces less beer and yet more wine may be due to the influence of its' Catholic heritage.

Both France and Italy have strong roots with Catholicism and the Holy See.

Italy was once the home of the Papal States (8th century - 1870) and France was home the papacy during the Western Schism .

We must keep in mind that for Catholics wine is absolutely necessary for their liturgy.

In fact the Vatican is at the top of the list of wine drinking nations.

Vatican City is at the very top of the wine-drinking league with an average resident consuming an impressive 54.26 liters a year.

Although it may seem surprising that the Holy See grabs top spot, it does have a uniform and unusual demographic.

Its residents are older and tend to eat together in large groups while the consumption of Communion wine is standard practice for a large proportion of them.

Andorra, another small European nation, is in second place with 46.26 liters consumed per capita.

France places fifth, with residents drinking 42.5 liters of wine each year.

The World's Biggest Wine Drinkers

Wine Consumed Per Person in 2012

Sorry, the top answer here is kind on the right track but not 100%.

It all has to do with the CLIMATE of these countries.

Generally, in the northern hemisphere, you cannot make quality wine above the 50th parallel.

It simply starts to get too cold to grow grapes that get ripe enough for wine.

OTOH, you can grow barley just about anywhere.

So, why did they choose wine over beer then?

The other reason why wine is the preferred drink where you can grow grapes is that beer goes bad quickly and does not transport easily.

Whereas, wine can be stored a long time and transported long distances (we are of course talking about ancient history).

So, given a choice, our ancestors usually choose wine.

Here is a map to show where grapes can be grown and it explains why historically it was grown where it was.

Question: Consider the map of per capita beer consumption by county  from Wikipedia :   Zooming in on Europe, something that jumps out is that France and Italy consume much less beer than their neighbors:   What has caused these two countries to be pretty much surrounded by other countries with higher beer consumption? I would imagine to some degree this is caused by replacing beer consumption with wine consumption, but what led to these regional differences in alcohol preferences?

Why do France and Italy have so much lower beer consumption than their neighbors?

France and Italy consume less beer than their European neighbors. To a large extent this is a historical situation: in the past Southern Europe produced and drank wine; Northern Europe produced and drank beer because of the climate.  The Romans spread wine-drinking culture and Romanized areas tend to drink more wine than beer. In Italy, alcohol consumption in general is low compared to the rest of Europe.

Italy and France are countries with a strong culture and history of wine production, so beer is less pronounced. Wine was easier to store, while beer would go bad quickly and was difficult to transport. Northern European countries were less able to grow grapes and could grow barley and hops, so they produced more beer. This is also a cultural difference partly related to the influence of the Roman Empire and Roman Catholicism, leading to more wine consumption in romanised countries and more beer consumption in Germanic countries. While Spain is a warm romanised country with a Catholic tradition, it is drier than France and Italy and therefore less productive for wine growing.


In Brazil, we have a few.

But, in general, they're not an original beer, really created by some musician, but more a marketing thing.

They only contract a micro brewery to develop a recipe for then, or even use a previously existent beer and re-brand it with their names.

Examples are: Raimundos, Sepultura (which is a brazilian hardcore band well-known around the world) and Paralamas do Sucesso, bands which have a beer with their names produced by Bamberg Brewery, a microbrewery of São Paulo state dedicated exclusively to german styles.

The former 2 being merely a re-brand of Bamberg's flagship beers.

Velhas Virgens is a rock band from São Paulo which have their own brand too, and more than one beer, and I think someone inside the band homebrew.

Nowadays they produce in association with Invicta brewery, and I guess they have some contribution for them in the products development, although, of all those "rock band beers", they seem to be the most genuine/authentic initiative.

The way I see this thing on the craft beer scene is: people trying to take advantage of this trending market and make money out of it.

It's a pure marketing thing.

It's like you being a famous person and associating your name with some product, whatever it is, just because you know people will buy it only because of your image/name, and not because of what is really inside of it.

Particularly, I think this is pure opportunism.

If you want a look at a large variety of the band beers available this is a great site where you can buy them: Icon Beverages .

In Russia we have ARIA (АРИЯ) heavy metal band branded beer, made by Faxe.

Marketing way of Faxe.

As presentation of this event the band played a concert right at the Faxe brewery.

In South Africa (where I am from) the band FokofPolisiekar had two beers.

In other countries: Queen has a Bohemian Pilsner.

Loosely related: Playboy also has their own beer.

Not a band, I know.

In Denver CO, Trve Brewing collaborates with a variety of metal bands for some if their beers.

There's also Black Sky and Black Shirt Brewing.

Then there's the E40 malt liquor, but I forget who brews it.

In Texas, Real Ale brewed Iron Swan Ale for The Sword.

They followed that up with another Sword branded beer, Ghost Eye.

Hell, yes ! (source: acdc-beverage.com )

I have never drunk it though :) Update.

German rock band

" Die toten

Hosen " ("The dead pants", means "deadly boring")

has recently presented its own beer brewed in collaboration with a local brewery -

"Hosen Hell" (don't be confused with "hell", it's German for "pale lager beer", so the skull is from the band's logo not from hell.

See also note below)

In Russia, there is "Leningrad band" beer named after Russian " Leningrad " band.

Note:

Same applies to " Fucking Hell ".

Fucking is a village in Austria, Hell is pale beer.

But the name is obviously an intended pun.

beer.stackexchange.com/users/4742/Altbier is not Old Beer

Question: Does your country have any band or music based special crafted beers?In Finland I can get Mötorhead, Kiss, Iron Maiden and Finnish bands like Amorphis and soon Diablo's Corium Black titled beer.  I was wondering that if I could get information that different countries have band or music related beers I could order some online for educational purposes.

Which band beers exist in your country?

Band beers can be found in some countries. In Brazil, there is Raimundos Sepultura and Paralamas do Sucesso, as well as Velhas Virgens. In Russia, there ARIA beer made by Faxe. In South Africa, FokoPolisiekar has two beers and Queen has a Bohemian Pilsner sold around the world. In the US, Trve Brewing produces brands for a variety of bands and, in Texas, there is Iron Swan Ale for The Sword.

Several Brazilian bands have beers produced by Bamberg Brewery, and Velhas Virgens produces a homebrew beer. Russia has an ARIA-brand beer, South Africa has two beers connected with FokofPolisiekar and Queen has a Bohemian Pilsner. Trve Brewing collaborates with several heavy metal bands, Real Ale brewed Iron Swan Ale for The Sword and ACDC has a beer.


There are a few main things contributing to this 'hype'.

Firstly is the addition of the lime.

It adds the citric acidity that pairs well with the light beer and gives it a unique zing that you don't find in other easily available beers.

Secondly, its a light beer that is easy and pleasurable to drink.

It may not have rich notes that some love, or special characteristics, but what it gains is wide appeal and a product that you can't really hate, even if you don't absolutely love it.

It is a very refreshing beer to drink when compared to a heavier lager or IPA.

Finally, is the marketing / ambiance it embodies.

This is very likely a smaller contributing factor, but often one recalls having a nice corona on the beach as they relaxed, or correlate the beer to that image in their head, so it has that mental factor as well.

It comes down to the fact that reviews and 'class' aside, you should be drinking the beers you enjoy, and for many non-connoisseurs Corona fits that bill very well.

Corona used to be a cheap Mexican Beer available in the US.

When its popularity fell a little bit, the company's marketing wing decided to provide provocative ads and increase the price.

Americans bought that (the marketing) and Corona now is a "desired" beer in the US.

That's my take based entirely on personal observation and this: http://www.aef.com/pdf/effie/corona_2006.pdf

Corona is not the first to use this marketing approach, gold schnapps did the same thing and were somewhat successful, though they didn't have the windfall that Corona had.

Remember Gold Schnapps?

It used to be a cheap schnapps, with enticing and interesting "gold" flakes drifting slowly through the drink.

The new Gold Schnapps is more expensive and the companies accentuate the "gold" flakes...

I haven't looked, but I'll bet this marketing also worked.

I wouldn't even call it a fad, it's a cheap drink that's light and not too alcoholic.

I think more than anything, Americans are attracted to it's Mexican/fiesta advertising and they just feel like it makes a moment more festive.

Disclaimer: Not a Corona fan.

My two cents - Corona is an accessible beer (both geographically and taste-wise).

You can get it anywhere, and it doesn't contain any of the strong flavors that come with liberal use of hops, malt or yeast (such as found in the IPA, stout, or Belgian varieties).

Lagers are generally easy-drinking, and when paired with a great marketing campaign and a little wedge of lime, makes for a beer that almost anyone can drink 3 or 4 of.

My greatest like of Corona is the fact that it's a light bear and that it pairs very well with lime.

This way in the summer when it's how, it is a very refreshing beer and easy to drink.

Also this is the way it's marketed, a "summer party" beer so it fits its role well.

Question: I have heard a lot about corona in terms of its taste and being the great alcoholic beverage !! It is worth the hype or just a fad ?

What is so special about corona beer?

Corona is a lager with the addition of lime. Lagers are generally easy-drinking, and when paired with a great marketing campaign and a little wedge of lime, makes for a beer that almost anyone can drink 3 or 4 of. The lime adds the citric acidity that pairs well with the light beer and gives it a unique  zing  that you don't find in other easily available beers. Moreover, it is light, very widely available, low in alcohol and cheap. It is very well marketed as a summer party beer.

Corona is a refreshing beer without strong flavour notes and that pairs well with lime. It is not very alcoholic and can be drunk in a relaxed atmosphere. Corona has also benefitted from a strong marketing campaign that highlighted its association with leisure time, summer and Mexican culture.

Corona has benefitted from a strong marketing campaign that highlighted its association with leisure time, summer and Mexican culture.


I usually use either Jägdbitters (a Jägermeister-like bitters sold at Aldi) or my family's version of Bärenjäger (which I prepare at home - nope, it's not bitters, but it was also used historicaly for the same purpose), mostly when I feel a cold coming up due to catching rain.

Jägermeister gives a soothing feel to the throat if taken when you're already with the cought, but if taken as a preventive, it makes me feel like a warm blanket was dropped over my shoulders

and I don't get the actual cold afterwards.

It always works we me too, better than pharmacy bought stuff.

When I tended bar, I had several regulars who would drink club soda with a couple splashes of bitters to calm an upset stomach.

But it never did anything for me personally.

I don't know if it's purely a psychological effect or a your-mileage-may-vary situation.

I use it when my thorat is hurting.

But I also like it just by the taste of it.

My favorite one is called "Hopfenbitter" example

I have episodes of heartburn, usually from eating beef or potatoes

and I find it very soothing to drink a splash of bitters in club soda.

I make homemade bitters with ginger, grapefruit, gentian root, and several spices that seem to be the most effective.

Bitter herbal liqueurs are popular in Europe for before or after a meal to stimulate the appetite or aid digestion.

Gentian root is one of the most common bitter agents.

While I don't know of any clinical studies, gentian root has been used in herbal medicine for centuries to treat digestive issues.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because bitter compounds are mostly found in plants and are often more or less poisonous.

If the body produces more digestive enzymes in response to bitter flavors, the extra enzymes can neutralize the poison or extract more nutrition from the plant material.

It's certainly not totally effective, salivary enzymes won't save you from hemlock poisoning, but it could reduce the ill effects of mild poisons.

Angostura bitters and club soda is a regular drink in my house.

I find that it calms my stomach and just generally makes me feel better.

I like to use a heavy dose of bitters--usually like 8-10 dashes--per 8 oz of soda.

Fernet is also a real godsend for digestive ailments, but be warned that it's very, very bitter.

When I have a nasty cough or a cold I drink Jägermeister to soothe the sore throat and to keep me from coughing every five seconds.

I find it cools my throat and makes it less itchy.

This works really well for me, a lot better than actual cough medicine.

Commonly known amongst bartenders, a remedy for curing the hiccups is to eat a lemon wedge doused with bitters .

(In case anyone is wondering... don't eat the rind.

Bleh.)

Traditionally Angostura bitters are used, although it's possible that Angostura's use is due to availability, for a long time it was the only type of bitters most bars carried.

A caveat though, the lemon trick is only recognized for curing hiccups induced by drinking alcohol.

I say it's still worth a try, no matter the cause of the hiccups.

If the flavor sounds unappealing you can put granulated sugar on the lemon in addition to the bitters.

Sugar has a hidden benefit too, it's a known hiccup remedy when taken by itself... and not just the ethanol induced ones.

Ramazzotti , an Italian herbal/bitter liquor.

I drink a shot glass full of it when ever I have a stomach ailment.

Works like a charm.

And tastes great on ice and some like it with a touch of lemon in it as well.

For me, the best remedy for a particular type of stomach pain is bitters----horrid tasting Underbergs, delicious Jaegermeister, or intermediate Fee Bros Cardamom.

Visiting Hungary, I have now discovered Unicum.

I believe they all work by triggering the release of acetylcholine, which causes release of gastric acid, increased peristalsis (propelling movement of stomach and intestines), bile secretion and possibly direct effects on intestinal lining cells.

Really a godsend sometimes, especially when traveling since they are so widely available abroad.

I use gentian bitters (made from violets, such as Fee Brothers Aromatic Bitters, Peychaud's Bitters or Angostura) with soda water for stomach ailments.

It really does the trick.

Question: Bitters  are known to have medicinal qualities.  I've never used them beyond making killer cocktails... But, I've noticed that orange bitters, in particular, will imbue me with an added vigor or gusto, at times. I've heard certain bitters can be consumed for stomach and headaches but, I've never been able to replicate the affect.  What added physiological or psychological sensations have any of you noticed when consuming bitters? Which bitters have you consumed for what particular ailment(s)?

Does anyone here still use bitters as medicine? Which ones do you use and for what ailments?

beer.stackexchange.com/users/5847/Tim Burnett - Bassist

Bitters are still used as medicine. Jägdbitters and Jägermeister are used as a cold remedy and for a sore throat. Bitter herbal liqueurs are used in Europe for digestion. Bitters can also be used for an upset stomach, gentian bitters, for example.  Bitters have been used historically to counteract poisoning and although not completely effective they do counter mild poisoning.

Jägermeister and other bitters can be used to sooth a sore throat or a cough or cold. Gentian bitters with soda are soothing for stomach ailments or to ease indigestion. Gentian root is a traditional herbal medicine to treat digestive issues, and may work by increasing the production of enzymes.


Hobby

Some people do it as a pleasurable hobby.

You might also ask why someone would build furniture if they could buy it, or why they play a musical instrument if they can just listen to the radio.

Personal Taste

You may like a particular style of beer that isn't popular.

And, especially in Germany, you may want to make a style of beer that you can't buy in the store - one that has other flavor ingredients, so it doesn't comply with the beer purity laws.

Hello from the homebrew community.

There are many reasons to brew yourself, and the first reason is because you can.

This question is the same as "why bake your own bread?

", "why grow your own food?", "why start your own business?"

Because you can!

There is something primal and fundamentally connected to nature about brewing, and being able to harness a fungus to produce alcohol.

Not only this, but something spectacularly human about being able to produce something by yourself, and brewing beer and wine is surprisingly easy.

Consider that you then get to drink something you made and the satisfaction of being self-reliant in this respect.

The satisfaction of self-improvement and being able to share your creations with others can't be put into words.

You most certainly can buy beer, but you absolutely can't buy the beer I make.

Also, mine costs a fraction of the price that you pay others to make for you.

I hope I have answered your question.

We brew because we can, because yeast is freely available to all, and because it improves our skills and human capital.

Most of all, just like any trade, whether it be a carpenter, a butcher, or a chef.... we get to enjoy the fruits of our labour of love.

Because its a lot of fun!

I always feel like a mad scientist when I'm boiling up the wort on the stove adding ingredients, especially when adding the hops.

Its quite amazing to watch the yeast consuming the sugars and making the alcohol, yes you can see it!

Homebrew is healthy for you.

It is a living beverage.

All the yeast, enzymes and vitamins are all there for you just like nature intended.

Large commercial brewers filter most of this out and some even have to add back in the carbonation.

Homebrew is not dangerous, the worst that will happen is bacteria will spoil the beer's taste.

There is no documented case of contaminated beer that has killed anyone.

The theory is since the yeast micro-organism already 'lives' in the beer they create an environment that is not favorable to other micro-organisms.

Finally if you are not old enough to buy alcohol, usually you can buy the ingredients and make it yourself.

The brew shop I frequent is very close to a large college campus.

Coincidence?

I think not.

It's exactly as with food.

By cooking* at home, my wife and I can always get the food

** that we want, exactly the way we want it.

There is a chance of us screwing up and ending up with bad food

**, but with practice that doesn't happen very often.

There is some food

** that we are not well equipped or trained to make, but that we happily buy from professionals.

And it's cheaper to do your own cooking* than to buy everything ready-made, if you discount the cost of labour and appliances.

If you want to exclusively have food** that someone else makes, that's your choice, and modern society can provide.

But I think cooking* at home really is rather sensible.

*brewing

**beer

You ask a great question.

I think a great reason to do it is to learn.

I like the answer 'Personal Taste' above.

If you already know what you like you can make it.

But, if you're just playing around brewing you can come up with tastes you never thought of.

You might even like your own recipe.

Question: I am living in Germany and know at least 2 people that do it. But why would you take the risk if you could just buy very good beer at your local stores?

Why do people brew their own beer?

People brew beer because they can, because they enjoy it, because making things for yourself and being self sufficient is satisfying, because they want tastes not available in the store, and many other reasons. Brewing beer is not dangerous. In fact there are no documented cases of people being poisoned by the beer they have brewed.

As with any hobby, people do it because it is fun and they can learn and get better. Making something yourself makes you feel more connected to what you use and consume, and there is a lot of satisfaction in enjoying something that you created. Sometimes the particular kind of beer that you like is difficult to find, or you can experiment with flavours to find one you really like. Homebrew is not unhealthy or dangerous, and the yeast in the beer may suppress more harmful micro-organisms.


Irish whiskey is one I like to do with tea.

In fact I like to make an Irish coffee by substituting the coffee with a strong black tea.

Try it!

I am rather fond of it.

Gunfire is a classic British rum and black tea cocktail, with a German equivalent in the Jagertee .

Two European great powers can't be wrong - go with the rum!

Wild Turkey American Honey is excellent with most kinds of tea including black, green, and orange pekoe.

Throw in a squeeze of lemon for an delicious, easy to make, and modern twist on the Hot Toddy.

Wild Turkey American Honey

Another alcohol that pairs well with tea is tea flavored vodka.

There are lots of different brands of this such as Firefly and Jeremiah Weed, and typically in bars they are paired with iced tea, they work equally well with hot tea.

Finally, Fireball or other Cinnamon Whiskeys go well with Tea also, but they can often overpower less potent teas.

Once I helped out as bartender, a girl asked for green vodka with green tea.

My father sometimes adds Rum to it.

Preferably German Strohrum (straw rum).

If you like the floral taste of earl grey tea, you might enjoy adding a splash of St. Germain elderflower liqueur and a lemon twist to black tea.

The very refreshing Rosa Mae cocktail combines black tea, gin, honey and lime.

I'm currently sipping a hot toddy made with lemon & ginger herbal tea, honey, and a local whiskey.

It's very soothing on a sore throat.

Tea and beer can be a great combination.

I have a blog post here about some tea beers that I made in cooperation with a local brewery.

The combination of cinnamon orange spice tea with a hefeweizen worked especially well, as hefes are often served with a slice of citrus.

I took a class a few years back on pairing tea with whiskey (or whisky).

They were focused on serving the whiskey and tea separately rather than blending them, but blending can work nicely.

I'm a fan of smokey malty Scotch — mostly the Islays — and it blends nicely with a powerful black tea.

If you really dig the smoke flavor, blend an Islay Scotch with a lapsang souchong or Russian Caravan tea.

If you like citrus flavors in your tea, try using a splash of Triple Sec or Cointreau.

Enjoy!

In Northern Germany they handle it in the following way.

First they take rock candy and put it into a glass.

It can be brown or white rock candy.

The glass is filled up with brown rum which has a Vol% between 38 and 40 of alcohol.

It is possible to mix and use it immediately, but most people just put it aside for a while.

After some time the fluid of rum becomes glutinous and the surface of the rock candy becomes soft.

When this mixture is in that status they put some spoons of it into the cup and fill it up with black tea.

Could be from Ceylon or comparable.

When filling up with the hot tea the rock candy crashes internally and when mixing up the tea with it all it becomes a wonderful experience especially in wintertime.

Hot mint tea goes great with rum.

Almost any kind of rum will do it.

This is a beverage that is drunk usually in the cold season and you can find it at the chalets near the skiing spots (as rum keeps you warm).In Romania if it's winter and you get to one of this chalets and ask for "a tea

" it is possible that you will automatically get an alcoholic tea without any notice.

I'll add some Japanese suggestions to this list.

Cold oolong tea with shochu (usually barley) is a very common mix.

Also, jasmine tea with awamori is an Okinawan favorite.

Both are light, easy to drink and refreshing.

If there's a Japanese market near you, you can probably get both the liquor and tea there.

I've also seen interesting green tea-infused cocktails, like martinis, mojitos and highballs, though I haven't had a chance to try those yet.

I absolutely love brandy in tea.

Hot black tea with brandy, cream, and sugar!

Nom, nom, nom!

Question: I drink tea.  I had a thought about putting something into it.  What good alcohol can I think about putting into the tea?

What alcohol would go good with tea?

Top picks for an alcohol that goes with tea are: Irish whiskey, rum, Scotch whiskey, brandy, vodka, schochu, awamori, St, Germain elderfloer liqueur, gin and beer.

Whiskey/whisky, rum and brandy all pair well with black tea, and some herbal teas. There are several cocktails and mixes with green tea, including martinis, mojitos and highballs. Cold oolong tea with shochu and jasmine tea with awamori are regional favourites. Whiskey, gin and other alcohols can be mixed with rum and tea, especially with some added citrus. Beer can also go well with tea, again with some citrus flavouring added.


Generally, you'll want to avoid things with brighter, more acidic fruit flavors (apple, lemon) as those will mess with the inherent acidity of the coffee (although it should be noted that cherry is sometimes used) Kahlua and Baileys are commonly used, as are more woodsy whiskeys.

Avoid anything with carbonation, as the carbonic acid will again mess up the flavor of the coffee (beer is a no-no) and you should also avoid scotches, rye, or other peaty-earthy whiskeys.

Also, rum is pretty good with coffee, if you're using raw sugar in your coffee - demerara and rum are best friends.

Rumpleminze (peppermint schnapps) and coffee and cream creates a smooth and potent alcoholic drink.

Add a Godiva Chocolate Liquor for a first class-after dinner cocktail.

Grand Marnier(something like an orange flavored brandy) goes well with both black coffee and coffee and cream.

If you like

your coffee black Grand Mariner adds flavor and potency without adding a lot of sweetness.

Of course it goes just as well with cream, which results in something a lot like a chocolate orange.

A Tuaca(people often describe it as tasting something like butterscotch)

Macchiatto(my own recipe) is an alchololic twist on the classic coffeeshop favorite.

Mix a shot of Tuaca into a shot of steamed milk.

Top with Coffee.

This tastes mild but packs a decent punch, and if you take the time to do it properly ("mark it"), it looks pretty cool.

(This also tastes great with regular milk or cream.)

A second variation on this, which is far less potent is to replace Tuaca with 1/2 a shot of Chambord and 1/2 a shot of Godiva White Chocolate Liqueur and mix thoroughly .

This will an tasty adult white chocolate mocha.

Finally, a classic cocktail combination is coffee (with or without cream) and Sambuca.

Sambuca is often served with 3 coffee beans, but it works very well with an entire cup.

Sambuca contributes a lithe sweetness that delicately lingers in the mouth.

Avoid

if you don't like Anise or Licorice.

For a seriously potent version of Sambuca and Coffee swap out Sambuca for Absinthe(not refined).

In addition to the alcohol content, Absinthe also offers a jolt akin to what caffeine provides. Be responsible and Enjoy!

I like the sweeter liqueurs like Glayva, Grand Marnier and especially Galliano with espresso.

If you have a milk-based coffee, combine with a cream-based liqueur.

I have never liked alcohol mixed directly in the coffee, it gives conflicting tastes.

Coffee and liqueur should be sipped separately to fully enjoy each.

I just shove any cheap whisky (usually grouse) into espresso coffee and add a little caster sugar -

thats good!

Other combinations are espresso coffee with a shot of baileys and a shot of bourbon topped up with whipped cream and a little sugar to your taste.

The type of coffee in my experience (which is plentiful!)

dosent really make much of a difference, buy mid range espresso coffee and you can create beautiful things.

I also add liqueur into coffee for people at work

(barman - coffee liqueurs arent my thing)

but theres plenty of people on youtube who will show you how to make the perfect coffee liqueur.

Enjoy the beautiful combination that is coffee and alcohol.

I will add here an Italian recipe that I recently discovered and enjoyed a lot!

The drink called Moretta Fanese is referenced on both Italian and English Wikipedia.

In a transparent coffee or punch glass, one spoon of sambuca (anisette), one spoon of rum and one spoon of brandy or cognac are mixed with sugar and a lemon zest and heated with steam.

Then, one espresso is added in a way to leave three layers visible in the hot cocktail: bottom to top liquors mix, coffee and coffee foam.

A super flavour, really recommended!

Question: What alcohol products go well with a particular type of coffee?  I enjoy the odd  Irish Coffee  occasionally.  Desiring to expand my coffee/alcohol combos, I would like to know what types of coffee goes well with what type of alcohol?  Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

What alcohol products go well with a particular type of coffee?

When mixing alcohol with coffee, it is better to avoid fruity flavors. Alcohols that go well are: Kahlua, Baileys, some whiskeys, rum, bourbon, Sambuca, Absinthe, cream-based liqueurs with milk coffee, Rumpelminze, Godiva Chocolate Liqueur, Grand Marnier, Glayva and Galliano. Some people believe coffee and liqueur should be sipped separately.

Bright and acidic flavours will conflict with the acidity of the coffee, and carbonation should be avoided. Woodsy whiskeys and rum are popular and better pairings than peaty-earthy whiskeys. Sambucca is commonly served with espresso beans, and goes well with a cup of coffee. Absinthe can have a similar effect. Cream-based liqueurs such as Kahlua and Baileys go well with milk-based coffees, and can be topped with cream. To avoid conflicting tastes, coffee and liqueur can be sipped separately rather than mixed together. Sweeter liqueurs like Grand Mariner, Glayva, Galliano, Rumpelminze or Godiva Chocolate go well with espresso.


My favorite French cheese is Roquefort and is often served with nuts and honey in France.

I would like to recommend an Appletini with Roquefort along with the most authentic French bread you are able to procure in your area.

The French love their fruit and fruit flavored food and drinks.

Appletini cocktail : Vodka with dashes apple juice and apple liqueur.

Serve in a classic martini glass with Roquefort, French bread and garnish with apple slices as garnish.

This is one that I have had in France and enjoyed it very much, perhaps you would too.

Please allow me to make a second recommendation for you.

This one I have not tried, but I have had the Soup au Vin with strawberries and it was absolutely great.

For a twist on this blackberry wine might also go well with it (real natural blackberry wine and not the blackberry flavored ones).

Simply pair your favorite champagne with a piece of flavorful Comte and the gentle flavored, bubbly wine will create the perfect compliment to the cheese (fromage).

For the cocktail: Make punch by combining one bottle of pink champagne, one bottle of red wine, one 16 oz.

can of frozen lemonade and one 16 oz.

can of fruit punch.

Garnish with fresh strawberries .

Since you mention sheep cheese and dark fruit, I'll address that type of pairing.

You want a cocktail that reflects the item you pair with the cheese.

Start with the Luxardo cherry in a Manhattan ( epicurious on Luxardo cherries ).

Then, think about sweetening up the otherwise stiff-but-smooth Manhattan to better complement the cheese.

For example, replace the vermouth with tawny or ruby port; or, replace 0.5 ounces of the whiskey with blackberry brandy.

In general, start with a solid principal (e.g., fruit pairing) and an established cocktail with some element of the pairing, then experiment using your palate as a guide.

It may take several iterations, but that is the fun, is it not?

Manhattan with Brie.

Dirty Martini with Brie.sounds delish.

In France one would expect a good red wine with the cheese.

Maybe you can go that route with a red wine based cocktail.

I don't have a proven recipe at hand but a quick google showed up with lots of results.

Lillet Rouge (a red, French sweet vermouth) is close in taste to red wine, maybe a vodka-martini with Lillet Rouge suffices, but you would need to try.

The competition is now over and the good news is that we won the French stage by axing everything around Normandy

and it turned out really well:

Here is the recipe we followed : http://www.1001cocktails.com/cocktails/5865/recette-cocktail-partie-au-calvados.html

(using "brut" cider)

And I bought a nice cheese from Normandy:

A Pont l'évêque.

We served a small toast of nice old style campaign multi cereal French cheese with a slice of Pont l'évêque.

The cocktail and the toast were so different that they completed each other:

Nice acidity and sugar from the cocktail thanks to the lemons (we let it infuse for 24 hours and

the result was reaaally good, at some point we almost decided not adding cider nor perrier) and the fatness and strenght of the cheese surprisingly came out very well.

Anyway thanks for your insights guys, and don't hesitate to try the recipe ;-)

Question: For a kind of cocktail competition I'm running against friends, I need a cocktail around France theme, my idea is to pair a cocktail with a French cheese.  I know that cherries do pair well with bask sheep cheese for example (we're used to eat it with black cherry jam)  Would you have a cherry flavored cocktail to advise ? Or any other cheese / cocktail association ?  Many thanks!

What cocktail could be paired with French cheese?

In France, wine would be served with cheese. However, other options are suggested including Appletini with Roquefort, Champagne with Comte, Manhatten with Brie and Dirty Martini with Brie. As pairing cocktails with cheese is unusual, some experimetation starting froma solid principle may be in order.

A good red wine with the cheese would be a traditional combination in France itself. Champagne would compliment Comte, or a Manhattan or Martini with Brie. When creating your own cocktail to match the cheese, try to pair the cheese with a fruit, and choose a cocktail based on this and an established cocktail.

Try to pair the cheese with a fruit, and choose a cocktail based on this and an established cocktail.


At the time of writing this the strongest beer in circulation is a scottish made larger/pilsner Snake Venom By Brewmeister , this beer is 67.5% ABV.

and is strongly recommended that you only drink small amounts in a sitting, buying a bottle(275ml) of this would set you back a £54.99 Other than this beer there was Koelschip Mistery Of Beer - Brouwerij het Koelschip that was 70% ABV

but as I'm aware is no longer in circulation and has had production stopped as the brewery shut down As far as

all alcohol goes the strongest spirit is spirytus rektyfikowany which is a 96% Vodka.

The cheapest you will find this is a small bottle(10cl) and this will cost £7.95

It is is strongly recommended to not drink this neat as it would be damaging

Indirect answer 95% or 190 proof is an upper end for distilled alcohol Water and ethanol form an azeotrop at that mixture so you can not get more than 95% ethanol with fractional distillation.

Spirytus Rektyfikowany

The purity of rectified spirit has a practical limit of 95.6% ABV; this hard to pronounce Polish Vodka is a murderous 96% ABV.

Here are the details on the bottle: A 10cl bottle of rectified spirit from Poland bottled at the extreme ABV of 96%.

This is often used as a base for liqueurs and other infusions, and we highly recommend that it is never drunk neat.

From Australia's "Courier Mail" : National Alliance for Action on Alcohol co-chairman Professor Mike Daube

said it was "amazingly irresponsible'' for stores to sell the liquor, which had the potential to cause serious damage to drinkers or even kill them.

Prof Daube said the extreme nature of the product could appeal to young binge > drinkers, and putting the product next to normal spirits could endanger people who did not read the label properly.

For those who wish to drink something from Bolivia, there is Cocoroco which is an alcoholic beverage notable for its extremely high alcohol content by volume, 96%.

(ABV).

Cocoroco is sold as "potable alcohol", most often in tin cans.

Like rum, cocoroco is made from sugar cane.

Cocoroco (Wikipedia) Cocoroco can

The following article may be of some all around interest: Top 10 Strongest Alcoholic Drinks in the World.

For myself, I have found that Everclear is the strongest spirits I have ever bought at 190 proof.

Although it is too strong for myself to drink by itself, it makes excellent mixes.

Some people have use it to extract the medicinal properties out of plants because of its' strength.

It also comes in 150(1) proof bottles too.

A bottle of 190-proof Everclear

The lower proof Everclear is much easier to find and is quite common in the USA.

The 190 proof (95% ABV) is sold at Bevmo , depending on your state.

For more information see the Liquor Barn .

You can buy scientific grade Ethanol, usually at a science supply shop.

Many of them only sell it in person.

It is usually 99.5% or 199 proof! .

For that extra kick if Everclear isn't strong enough for you!

Ethanol at Fisher Scientific

Try "Kehlenschneider".

It's a Chili liquor with 80% alc and 400,000 to 800,000 scoville.

Remember, tabasco has only 3,000 scoville.

Kehlenschneider Chillischnaps

I know you are looking for "normal outlets", but for those who are interested, the world record holder for a while was Estonian Spirit aka Eesti Piiritus at 96.6%.

You can still find some for sale at auctions.

I brought a few bottles back when you could still buy it and foolishly did a shot of it.

Never trying that again!

Hapsburg Premium Reserve

Absinthe has 89.9% ABV

The strongest absinthe on the UK market.

Serve well diluted for your own safety and keep well away from naked flames.

The term premium reserve refers to the high strength, with original being the 'weakest' (though still 72.5%) and super deluxe being in the middle.

Please note this is a high-strength product and we recommend not drinking neat

– please enjoy diluted or with a mixer of your choice.

Question: Assuming that it is available through 'normal' outlets - shops, supermarkets, off licenses etc... (in other words legal)  What (per unit) is the strongest alcoholic drink in the world?  Beers, wines and spirits included.

What is the strongest drink in the world?

The strongest spirit available in outlets is spirytus rektyfikowany  which is a 96% Vodka. Without the limitation of "normal outlets", the world record holder for a while was Estonian Spirit aka Eesti Piiritus at 96.6%.

95% or 190 proof is around the limit for fractional distillation, but several brands such as Spirytus Rektyfikowany, Cocoroco, Eesti Piiritus or Everclear are 95, 96 or higher. The strongest beer in circulation is the lager/pilsner Snake Venom, which is 67.5% ABV.


According to the suttas, samsara has no beginning.

There are many references to this.

Is there a starting point to a circle?

Just like that, there's no starting life to Sansara.

But you can break this circle at 2 points.

Ignorance.

Craving.

That is when you attain Nibbana.

The answer to your question depends on how one understands the word "start."

Etymologically, the English word means to jump, leap up, or move or spring suddenly, thus, to arise, to come into being.

In accordance with the law of karma, the whole process of samsara itself must be self-starting.

This can be proved logically based on the law of karma, which requires that every cause have an effect and every effect a cause.

Since samsara is time itself, the essence of time is the identity of cause and effect, thus, the moment, which is then extended in space as past and future to create the infinitely differentiated world that we experience.

However, as the illusory negation of reality samsara must inhere in the non-illusory, which is reality itself.

Therefore, samsara also inheres in reality, and in that sense has a logical - but not a temporal - "origin.

" This "start" is the principle of karma itself, which is the inherent kinetic principle in transdual reality.

This is necessary to explain our experience of samsara.

Otherwise, there would just be nothing at all.

This point of identity of samsara and reality is, once again, the moment.

Therefore, the answer to your question is that the start of samsara is the inherently timeless and therefore eternal moment, which paradoxically is the origin of time, space, and causality that endlessly differentiates in infinitely variegated patterns.

This view of the cosmos remarkably presages certain theories in modern physics, especially the holographic theory of the universe.

Beginning of Samsara is stated by Buddha as not knowable for ordinary beings.

Knowing rightly would be to not imagine in regard of its beginning.

Usually Samsara is imagined as round of re-births in the six realms, or much more detailed view as bhavacakra .

Your question has two parts

so i will answer in the following order...

How to understand "Samsara" and how it works.

Sansara or Samsara is the word Lord Buddha picked to name a certain circle of death and life.

What is samsara As we Buddhists believe as long as a being lust for existence he will be born according to his Karma.

To this process we call "Sansara or Samsara".

So where is the start of samsara?

Even Lord Buddha was intrigued by the question and started to find a solution.

The only way to do it is to look back into your own past to find your first life.

So Lord Buddha went back countless amount of lives and understood that the "Beginning" is very ancient the time we have in a life is not enough to look back and see that life.

So lord Buddha said this to the Sangha

"There is no point in looking for a start,it is too old and trying to find an answer is a waste of time".

And advised that no one should try to find an answer to it (Because they will not be able to find it)

So my friend that question can't be answered by any being in the universe,Because if there is something out of Lord Buddha's reach it is out of anyone's reach.

So how does samsara work?

How it works is complicated but i will give you a simplified version of it.

Samsara needs fuel like your car,As long as you give fuel to it it will keep working and you will have life after life to live.

Let me give an example from lord Buddha.... "Karma is the paddy field,Lusting is the water,vinyana is the seed"

In the real world without water a seed will not grow,likewise without "Greed or lust"

you will not be born,without it there is no samsara but as long as you have it you will have samsara and you will have to suffer in whatever karma brings you.

Buddhism basically deals with the present.

Dwelling the mind on past or future unnecessarily creates mental vexation.

Hence, concepts like God, origin, etc. are not dealt in Buddhism.

It doesn't matter why or how the samsara came into existence, what matters is that samsara does exist.

Now when samsara exists and we exist, our effort should be eradicating problems that give rise to suffering.

For example, because you are thinking about the origin, you are to some amount troubled by the question.

So as per Buddhism you should not focus your mind on such irrelevant questions as they unnecessarily create suffering.

However, if you are really looking for answers then you should consider studying the philosophy of other religions.

If you do, then you will find the answer to be God.

Then the question of starting point of God will arise in your mind.

If you look into science, it says Big Bang is the starting point.

But in my view, Nothing is the starting point.

Only that which has come to exist can have a starting point.

How can that which doesn't even exist have a starting point?

I know this sounds ambiguous, but it's hard to explain here in few words.

You can check the following link if you like, but my findings there is based on Vedic scriptures: http://shunyavada.com/

Question: Every Buddhism believe in  Eternity  or  Samsara . So, how can I imagine of  Samsara ?. What is the starting of it ? Any suggestions would be really appreciated.

What is the starting of Samsara?

" This "start" is the principle of karma itself, which is the inherent kinetic principle in transdual reality.  Therefore, the answer to your question is that the start of samsara is the inherently timeless and therefore eternal moment, which paradoxically is the origin of time, space, and causality that endlessly differentiates in infinitely variegated patterns. As Buddhists believe as long as a being lusts for existence he will be born according to his Karma. It doesn't matter why or how the  samsara  came into existence, what matters is that  samsara  does exist.

The process of samsara is self-starting and the "start" is the principle of karma - inherently timeless and involving a series of re-births. There is no beginning or starting point to samsara and the concept is considered to be beyond comprehension.

Only that which has come to exist can have a starting point.

There is no beginning or starting point to samsara.

The process of samsara is self-starting and the "start" is the principle of karma - inherently timeless and a series of re-births.

The beginning of samsara is considered to be beyond comprehension.


I am not sure we should worship statues itself as that would be some sort of idolatry.

Buddhists worship Buddha, and statue or other image is just symbol , something that bring into our memory good qualities of Buddha.

It's mindfulness of Buddha.

Statue is a symbol, and symbol is communication which states about its subject, Buddha in our case.

Thus, showing respect before statue should be directed to Buddha as Jewel, and not to statue.

Mindfulness and respect to the Saint and Teacher is good action.

Btw, Buddha is not disappeared, he stated that he will remain in his Teaching (Dharma).

Thanissaro says in many places that the act of respect develops hand-in-hand with learning the path: In their eyes, the religious attitude of respect is needed for any philosophical understanding to grow .

And as far as they're concerned, there's no conflict between the two.

In fact, they're mutually reinforcing.

Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice

The veneration of statues with flowers and so on should be a natural expression of your development of the path.

The act of putting flowers next to a statue doesn't save anyone or develop anything, but it's an expression of your faith that what the Buddha taught is really worth learning:

Respect is the attitude you develop toward the things that matter in life.

No one should worship any Statue, in death bed Lord Buddha says not to build any statue of him.

More over He had been saying this all his life that his path is the path of practice not worship.

Now comes your Question why should we worship him ?

Once a king denied to worship a statue, then swami vivekananda asked him to spit on one his fathers portrait, as a result kind was angry.

So we should always keep in mind that the most important thing is to focus our minds, some may need help to keep it focused maybe some statue and some may need breathing techniques, some doesn't need anything, they just sit totally blank, As everything came out of nothing, nothingness is god, having a controlled & focused mind in nothing is all we need to do.

The true Buddha is the Eternal Buddha revealed in the Lotus Sutra.

It is not a normal human being.

The statue serves as a tool for remembrance, but it's actually an inferior symbol, because it depicts the bodily form of the Buddha.

A scroll with written characters is better.

A Sutra (text) is more similar to the true Buddha-body than a statue of Siddharta Gautama.

The true Buddha-body cannot be expressed or depicted so it expediently reveals itself in ways that are understandable to our feeble minds - such as "infinite buddha" (amitabha) etc.

Since the true buddha is formless, it cannot be depicted or potrayed.

But since it compassionately discloses itself to ignorant beings, it allows to be depicted in such a way.

It's simply a useful device.

It's dangerous though, because someone might cling to that body and believe a Buddha's body can decay, break or die.

That's not possible according to the Nirvana Sutra - the Buddha's body is permanent & eternal.

- To answer your question: what we really worship is the Buddha-nature that is present in every sentient and even insentient being.

It's in you & me too.

Buddha is a Sanskrit word meaning knowledge.

Thus a statue of Buddha is a personification of knowledge.

Buddhists do not pray to Knowledge (Buddha statue).

They venerate knowledge because 'knowledge is power'; they pursuit knowledge.

Theists hope to get power by praying.

Teaching of Lord Buddha (Budda is a statue) is for practice, diligent strenous practice, to get knowledge.

See definition of Buddha and Buddhism in Oxford Dictionaries.

Lets say the Buddha was alive today and you offered Dana to the Buddha.

But what if the Buddha does not accept it?

Will you still not get the merits for your good intentions and the effort you put into preparing the Dana for the Buddha?

It's about the quality of your thoughts throughout the time you spent on it.

No one worshiping Buddha in India, We just ignite candle only .

And so if we gonna experiencing just observe you'll see Buddha's statue, his face

there's en lighted spirit, you'll not find with other gods, only Buddha's eyes are closed and peaceful spirit on face.

Peaceful atmosphere you'll feel.

Worshiping means bribe from devotee and want praise through chants; but we don't have to worship Buddha to achieve peace.

He just beyond concept of god and religion.

You can meditate next Buddha's statue.

There is no reason we have to.

There is also no reason I have to.

Plus there also is the same reason you don't have to either.

Since you have free will, you can choose to do so however.

The Buddha never asked to be worshiped, he only asked that we use the Dhamma and Vinaya as a guide to cessation.

Respect and veneration of the Buddha are wonderful, in that they engender a respect for their Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, but valuing the Buddha as anything more than a teacher will likely lead to attachment and stress/suffering.

The Buddha shined a lamp onto an individual path, one without an idol - where the cessation of stress/suffering is realisable in the here and now, generally with him as a guide.

In the Kalama Sutta he denies the absolute validity of all speculation, no matter what this speculation is grounded in, rather asking each one of us to search out and find out the knowledge found in the Dhamma for ourselves!

Question: Why should we worship Lord Buddha statues with flowers, lights and food, even when we know Lord Buddha is not alive and does not exist? Did Lord Buddha instruct us to do so or is there any other reason?

Why should we worship statues of Lord Buddha?

The statue in Buddhism acts as a remembrance of the Buddha and his teaching, it is not being worshipped itself. Some people need a statue to remind them, other need meditation, others need nothing. The statue helps, it is not central.

Some believe that a statue should not be worshipped, as this could be considered to be a form of idolatry. However, others believe that a statue may be useful as a tool to assist focus and mindfulness of Buddha and a show of respect. Some people think that the most important thing is to focus and that this is a matter of personal choice.

A statue may be used as a symbol, a reminder of Buddha and an expression of faith.

There is no reason to worship a statue, this is a personal choice.


The difference will always be the mental state of the person performing the action.

Giving is dependent on one's state of mind while giving; the amount is intrinsically inconsequential (though obviously a poor person will feel more strongly about giving $1000 than giving $1).

As Sakka, king of the devas of Tavatimsa says in the Vimanavatthu: "Natthi citte pasannamhi, appikā nāma dakkhiṇā;

Tathāgate vā sambuddhe, atha vā tassa sāvake"ti.

(vi. va. 804); There is not, when the mind is confident, such a thing as a small gift, In regards to a Tathagata, fully enlightened Buddha or, furthermore, his disciples.

Giving to the Buddha is considered to be of greater merit, not because of the benefit to the Buddha, but because of the ability to inspire faith and confidence in the giver.

As for killing, the mental state involved in killing large animals is generally more intense; also the sense of the weight of the act is greater, so the mind will be more strongly affected by it.

Killing virtuous people, parents, etc. is even worse, because it sets one squarely against virtue.

But there is no hard and fast rule here either; if you obsess over killing a single mosquito buzzing over you at night, you may cultivate more unwholesomeness than a single act of killing a larger animal.

Furthermore, karma isn't a single act of killing; it may be cultivated every moment; every thought concerning a moral or immoral act is karmically potent, so it's imprecise to ask if x or y is good or bad, better or worse, since karma is only a single thought moment at a time, and thus the potency depends upon the nature of the individual mind states.

Yes, there is a difference, and it is in the intent of the action.

If you kill a frog out of cruelty, that's a much worse karma than when you kill a snake to protect someone.

Yes, there are.

It is not same as giving someone $1 and giving someone $1000.

Similarly it is not same as killing a small animal and killing a big animal.

Of course the action is the same, but the resulting emotion or the experience created in the object that is acted upon is not same.

Hence, the magnitude of karma varies.

If you give a man $1 he may not feel that happy or grateful to you, but if you give him $1000 then he will feel more grateful and happy.

He will feel indebted to you and this will create a stronger karmic link.

For real life scenario just think which person will like to help you more, the one you gave $1 or the one you gave $1000?

What makes the difference?

The experience of the emotion created in their mind through your action.

Hence, if you give a person $1 who is starving without food will create more positive karma than if you give $1000 to a rich person like a millionaire.

Similarly, when you kill small animals like a mosquito the resulting effect is less because the suffering they feel is less.

The developed the consciousness and self identification of an animal is, the more suffering it is likely to feel at its death.

For example, a mosquito will hardly think of its family and children while dying compared to a mammal animal like an elephant or a human.

Since apart from physical pain mental suffering and experience of the object also matters, the more the animal feels the combined pain, the greater the karma involved will be.

Even the earthly law (as in courts) doesn't operate this literally.

And the Karmic law is a whole lot wiser.

It's a mistake to think of the Karmic law as a tit for tat.

The intention as well as the state of the doer matters.

The same action may have a different Karmic consequence based on the state of the doers.

Giving $1 to someone may be a very hard thing for a poor man to do while Giving $1,000 to someone may be a very easy thing for a rich man to do.

Additionally, one may be giving with the intention of sating their ego - to feel good about oneself - while the other may be doing it due to genuine goodwill.

Many more such factors would be taken into account by the Karmic law.

So, yes, there is a difference.

Karma is determined by: intensity of ones own volition, and mental state of the recipient (which acts like an amplifier) Killing a insect may not be as harmful as killing a person as the insert has a lower mental state.

If you give to a pious person and non pious person then the Karma from giving to the pious person is more.

If you give a small sum with a strong volition it will give better results than giving a large sum with a weak volition.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Question: Is there a difference in karma of giving someone $ 1 and giving someone $ 1000, or its same for anything given?  and  Is there a difference in karma of killing a small animal (like mosquito or small fish) and killing an big animal (like a cow or an elephant), or the karma is same for all killings ?  If there is a difference what makes the difference?

Are there any differences in karma?

S0: The difference will always be the mental state of the person performing the action. If you give a small sum with a strong volition it will give better results than giving a large sum with a weak volition.  As for killing, the mental state involved in killing large animals is generally more intense; also the sense of the weight of the act is greater, so the mind will be more strongly affected by it.  If you kill a frog out of cruelty, that's a much worse karma than when you kill a snake to protect someone. Furthermore, karma isn't a single act of killing; it may be cultivated every moment; every thought concerning a moral or immoral act is karmically potent, so it's imprecise to ask if x or y is good or bad, better or worse, since karma is only a single thought moment at a time, and thus the potency depends upon the nature of the individual mind states. Karma is determined by:   intensity of ones own volition, and  mental state of the recipient (which acts like an amplifier)   Killing a insect may not be as harmful as killing a person as the insert has a lower mental state.

Intentions are important.  Thoughts have a karmic effect, whether positive or negative. Killing a large animal  (like a cow)has a greater karmic effect than killing a small one (like a mosquito), because of the mental state required to carry out the act. The more pain felt by the animal in question, the greater the karma involved will be. Intentions also matter when giving. It is of greater karmic value to give to a pious or needy person than a non-pious or non-needy person. The action may be the same, but the result may differ. For example, $1 for someone who is starving is more significant than $1000 for a millionaire.

In the question of killing, the intention of a person greatly affects karma. Thoughts have a karmic effect, whether positive or negative. Killing a large animal  (like a cow)has a greater karmic effect than killing a small one (like a mosquito), because of the mental state required to carry out the act. The more pain felt by the animal in question, the greater the karma involved will be.


In mainland Southeast Asia, indigenous spirits have been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into Buddhist belief systems.

I believe this is known as syncretism.

In Burma these spirits are called nats , in Thailand phǐ.

Thai

phǐ can be benign, like house spirits, or they can be malevolent “ghosts”.

You can see a variety of Thai ghosts in this TV ad for light bulbs

(the slogan is “in the bright light, no one is afraid”).

The family is having a picnic within the grounds of a temple (an odd thing to do), and the father tells his son the name of each ghost.

The huge emaciated type, which is called a preta or hungry ghost, you might say is more “Buddhist” than the others because it often appears in depictions of Buddhist hells.

The preta’s mouth is just a tiny hole, so it can’t eat properly, which might be punishment for greed in a former life.

Thai light bulb ad

It's not always as clear as 'good' or 'evil'.

Angry, vengeful spirits also exist in forms of Buddhism.

Sometimes also seen as protectors, they can be a source of controversy.

More common is one's own belief in (or, more practically, fear of) something that is indefinitely, and irreparably, sinister or evil.

We subscribe to all sorts of interesting notions as children, some things tend to persist.

Ultimately, it's what your mind manages to trick you into into feeling; there are plenty of Christians that don't believe that demons exist so it really does depend on the individual.

So, yes to the concept (with emphasis on what neubau mentions about indigenous spirits ), but belief is a little more complicated; belief coupled with a healthy dose of ambivalence can be quite common.

For children, I think the boogeyman is rather universal :)

No. If it were, it would be the same as saying: "I am a Buddhist, you are not, you do the opposite of what I do and "believe in", hence I am good

and you are wrong, hence you are devil."

In my humble opinion, it is only about being able to going back to null and "see" things around as they are and those who don't (haven't).

And those who don't (haven't) are not evils, for they haven't understood and therefore they are still bind to pleasures, attachments, ego and the "I" that drive them to perform what they do.

They haven't been able to "unshell" themselves from these "qualities" through compassion and dis-attachment of the aforementioned.

Thanks for question.

Yes, Buddhism has evil spirits :)

In Pali Canon, in Jatakas, and in Tibetan Buddhism poems (for example "100,000 songs of Milarepa") there are numerous references to spirits and demons, both good and evil.

Many of them are metaphorical depictions of various psychological forces taking possession of a person (e.g. Mara, the spirit of doubt and confusion, that famously challenged Buddha by suggesting he wasn't really enlightened).

Others are personifications of the "spirit" (energy, mood) of a certain place (e.g. a haunted forest).

There are also Rakshas, (former) people so completely possessed by evil forces that they are no longer considered people , e.g. the jungle cannibals.

From modern perspective, the concept of demon is not necessarily a superstition, but more like a poetic way to talk about real phenomena taking place.

Checkout the "States of Deprivation" under the 31 planes of existence .Beings

there are not necessarily evil.

Rather they were born there because of evil deeds.

But we do have an evil god called the Mara.

He lives in the heaven called "Paranimmita-Vasavatti" Whoever holds the title 'Mara' is always evil as long as he holds that title.

Question: Some of the western religions have evil spirits like devils and demons.  Does the concept or belief in evil spirits occur in Buddhism?

Does the concept of evil spirits occur in Buddhism?

The concept of evil spirits exists throughout South East Asia. However, some believe it is alien to Buddhism as it would be the same as saying:  "I am a Buddhist, you are not, you do the opposite of what I do and "believe in", hence I am good.

Evil spirits do exist in Buddhism and have been incorporated into belief systems to a greater or lesser degree. These evil spirits are known as Nats in Burma and phǐ in Thailand. There are also numerous references to good and evil spirits and demons inPali Canon, in Jatakas, and in Tibetan Buddhism poems (for example "100,000 songs of Milarepa"). The Rashkas are people so possessed that they are no longer considered to be people. Also, the evil god known as Mara challenged the enlightenment of Buddha. However, some people do not believe that evil spirits exist in Buddhism.

These evil spirits are known as Nats in Burma and phǐ in Thailand. There are also numerous references to good and evil spirits and demons in Pali Canon, in Jatakas, and in Tibetan Buddhism poems (for example "100,000 songs of Milarepa"). The Rashkas are people so possessed that they are no longer considered to be people. Also, the evil god known as Mara challenged the enlightenment of Buddha.

Some people do not believe that evil spirits exist in Buddhism.


Sez who?

Attachment to Buddhism and to Buddhist philosophy is a very serious problem, which every practitioner should be careful about, since it's so seductive: it's easy to be perceived as progress, whereas it's the very opposite of progress.

To counter this hazard, some Zen schools recommend that "if you come across the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

(Not to be taken too literally.)

My understanding is that the Buddha taught that we should not attach ourselves to him or his teachings.

If we find that his teachings don't work, then we should feel free to leave them behind and pursue other paths.

That said, there is also the idea that some attachments are better than others.

For example it is probably better for an alcoholic to replace their attachment to alcohol with an attachment to the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Likewise, it would be better for someone who is attached to suffering or causing suffering in others to replace that with an attachment to the Buddha's teachings.

Buddhism is a "kayak" (a guide) that takes one from the endless sea of sufferings to find a harbor.

What would one do in order to commence and land on the harbor?

Leave the kayak - Buddhism - and disembark.

If not, one is attached to the kayak.

Still at sea.

The sea of sufferings.

If someone is insulting the Buddha and the Dhamma, and you become hurt, you are poisoned!

But if you feel neutral (Uppekha) or compassionate (Karuna) towards the person, you are fine!

Identifying with something doesn't necessarily mean you're attached to it, especially if that something is just your way of living.

I identify best with Zen Buddhism, but I'm not attached to it any more than I'm attached to my own consciousness; it's just become how I think, which dictates how I feel.

Attachments are bad because if you lose them, you suffer.

I can't 'lose' Zen without completely losing myself, which is going to happen to all of us one day or another :)

Preference is also commonly confused with attachment.

I prefer a certain knife in my kitchen drawer for slicing tomatoes, but I wouldn't be at all upset if it wasn't there one day, I'd simply replace it.

A part of daily meditation can be imagining losing that which you value the most, so you've experienced it when it ultimately happens, which softens or even mitigates the suffering that might otherwise ensue.

If you can't do that with something, then it's probably not something you could become attached to, but more just a part of your being.

Do the teachings of the Buddha cause you suffering?

If not, perhaps it's ok to hang on to them for a little while longer on this journey.

I find Buddhism refreshing in this manner as the teachings of some other religions

actually do cause suffering for their followers.

For example people who are excluded from participating fully in their chosen houses of worship due to sexual orientation.

Actually Buddha stated in his suttas after following the Eight Fold Path to attain Nibbana, you should give up the path when you attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.

It is something like this; think that you wanna cross a river.

There's no boat near by.

So you collect wood and creepers and finally build a small boat and you cross the river using it.

After crossing the river, will you carry the boat with you where ever you go thinking "this boat helped me to cross the river"?

No.

You'll leave the boat by the river and you'll go where you need to go.

Buddha state that similarly one should give up the eight fold path after perfectly attaining the supreme bliss of Nibbana.

@THelper

to elaborate on Toby's point.

To call oneself a buddhist is to identify oneself with an ideological construct and therefore to dwell in a mental fabrication.

The ideas of buddhism are arranged into a belief system more commonly known as a view.

To associate your self with this view, is exactly the kind of housebuilding which the buddha espoused against in practically every sutra.

Buddhism is the only "religion" which fervently encourages its followers to abandon any part of the belief system when it begins to hold them back rather than help them.

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

Buddha was not a Buddhist, he was not attached to the previous Buddha (Kassapa) and still the attained the maxium goal.

Becoming a Buddha or an Arahant does not require attachment, on the contrary, it requires deattachment and equanimity.

Don't think about Buddhism as a tradicional religion, it is more like an analysis of the laws of the universe (both inside and outside), Buddha was simply explaining how things work, what the mind is, the best path to take and the consequences of good and bad deeds.

You should have confidence and gratitude towards the Buddha.

If this becomes a strong attachment this will hinder your progress on the path.

The story of Vakkali is a good example.

If you are dealing with Buddhism as a phylosophy then you are dealing with matters at a conceptual level.

This is feeding into your perception than helping towards the cessation of perception.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

If one calls oneself a Buddhist, one has already missed the point.--- from a teacher my daughter had.

Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?

Because Buddhism (attachment to Buddha, Sangha, Dharma) has meta-attachment:it teaches to even let go of Buddhism itself--but only once one has mastered Buddhism's practices and not a moment sooner.

To be detached from Buddhism a moment sooner would be like a HS student dropping out before he finished.

In short: Buddhism teaches detachment from Buddhism itself.

No other tradition does this.

Question: Attachment (aka craving or greed) is one of the Three Poisons.  Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?  Perhaps it's related to the Tibetan Buddhist lojong "Don't make gods into demons"?

Attachment is a poison. Why is attachment to the Buddha and to Buddhist philosophy not a problem?

My understanding is that the Buddha taught that we should not attach ourselves to him or his teachings.  If we find that his teachings don't work, then we should feel free to leave them behind and pursue other paths. Buddhism is the only "religion" which fervently encourages its followers to abandon any part of the belief system when it begins to hold them back rather than help them. Becoming a Buddha or an Arahant does not require attachment, on the contrary, it requires deattachment and equanimity.   In short: Buddhism teaches detachment from Buddhism itself.

It is widely believed that Buddhism requires, teaches and encourages detachment, rather than attachment. If a person identifies with Buddhism, it is a way of life, not an attachment to it.

Identifying with something is a way of life, not an attachment to it.