Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[apophenia]

Clearly DL is a diplomat. His first answer reflected that - he is the public face of Tibet, seeking to gain wide support.

I note he said 'should not rely on'.

I also remember that he sent Leonid Brezhnev some of his special medicine to cure avidya shortly before Brezhnev died in 1982. This is the medicine mentioned in Evans-Wentz's translation of Bardo Thodol - a psychedelic traditionally manufactured by the Dalai Lama. Evans-Wentz was one of the first westerners ever to live with the lamas in Tibet in the early 20th century, and gained all of his knowledge first-hand. He is a very reliable source.

When I first took refuge with Beru Khyentse Rinpoche in 1979, he asked me what my practice was. I told him that I practiced sitting, chanting, and taking LSD. He said 'very good'. Beru Khyentse was very high in the heirarchy of Tibetam lamas. I subsequently studied with the venerable tulku Traleg Rinpoche. During one ten day retreat, I sat face to face directly in front of him for the ten days, and he had no problem with the fact that on occasion I was tripping on magic mushrooms. Not that it was obvious - my practice was stable enough that no-one noticed.


I was fortunate to study with some of the last lamas actually born in Tibet. I know perfectly well what their attitude was - although it does vary to some degree - I studied mahamudra and dzogchen with the Kagyu, ( and some Nyingma ) who specialised in the 'vertical path' - the Gelugpa for example are way more conservative).


Whilst I am not suggesting that buddhists should take drugs, to suggest that Tibetan lamas never did is plain false. Also, 40% of Tibet's barley crop ( or was it oats ? one or the other) was used to make chang (beer) for the monasteries.

So anyone who tries to tell me that this is not true is certainly misinformed.

My observation is that most casual recreational use of these drugs is superficial, and engaged in purely for the 'special effects'. That is a very different scenario to using them in the context of disciplined meditation.

I AM NOT ENCOURAGING USE OF THESE DRUGS. THEY HAVE DANGERS FOR MANY PEOPLE, AND MERELY SWALLOWING A PILL WILL NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO STABLE INSIGHT. Some teachers in Tibet used them to test the stability of their students, precisely because they can inflame the natural human predisposition to delusions of various kinds.

However, I am not going to remain silent about what I know to be true just because some people are attached to their ego-driven notions of 'purity'.

Here is Walter Evans-Wentz with Lama Kazi Dawa Samdup, with whom he translated Bardo Thodol (known as the Tibetan Book of the Dead). In that edition, you will find the footnote discussing Dalai Lamas traditional manufacture of psychedelics.

The Tibetans trusted him. He experienced their culture long before the idiotic controversy over drugs inflamed by corrupt law-enforcement in the USA. The 'war on drugs' has been one of the most lamentable, stupid witch-hunts in human history, and is itself responsible for the harmful aspects of the drug culture we see today. It has also financed ship-loads of US covert operations .... so keeping drugs both illegal and popular has had 'strategic advantages' for the US.

 

[apophenia]

I'll probably get an infraction for telling the truth ... such is life.
My post will probably be deleted. Most of the lamas born in Tibet will have departed their bodies soon, so there will be no-one to tell the truth. In the name of 'purity' a lie will be propagated and maintained by those lacking personal experience or understanding, or because public relations and fund-raising depend on it.

You get that.

 

[Murkve]

Clearly DL is a diplomat. His first answer reflected that - he is the public face of Tibet, seeking to gain wide support.

I note he said 'should not rely on'.

I also remember that he sent Leonid Brezhnev some of his special medicine to cure avidya shortly before Brezhnev died in 1982. This is the medicine mentioned in Evans-Wentz's translation of Bardo Thodol - a psychedelic traditionally manufactured by the Dalai Lama. Evans-Wentz was one of the first westerners ever to live with the lamas in Tibet in the early 20th century, and gained all of his knowledge first-hand. He is a very reliable source.

When I first took refuge with Beru Khyentse Rinpoche in 1979, he asked me what my practice was. I told him that I practiced sitting, chanting, and taking LSD. He said 'very good'. Beru Khyentse was very high in the heirarchy of Tibetam lamas. I subsequently studied with the venerable tulku Traleg Rinpoche. During one ten day retreat, I sat face to face directly in front of him for the ten days, and he had no problem with the fact that on occasion I was tripping on magic mushrooms. Not that it was obvious - my practice was stable enough that no-one noticed.


I was fortunate to study with some of the last lamas actually born in Tibet. I know perfectly well what their attitude was - although it does vary to some degree - I studied mahamudra and dzogchen with the Kagyu, ( and some Nyingma ) who specialised in the 'vertical path' - the Gelugpa for example are way more conservative).


Whilst I am not suggesting that buddhists should take drugs, to suggest that Tibetan lamas never did is plain false. Also, 40% of Tibet's barley crop ( or was it oats ? one or the other) was used to make chang (beer) for the monasteries.

So anyone who tries to tell me that this is not true is certainly misinformed.

My observation is that most casual recreational use of these drugs is superficial, and engaged in purely for the 'special effects'. That is a very different scenario to using them in the context of disciplined meditation.

I AM NOT ENCOURAGING USE OF THESE DRUGS. THEY HAVE DANGERS FOR MANY PEOPLE, AND MERELY SWALLOWING A PILL WILL NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO STABLE INSIGHT. Some teachers in Tibet used them to test the stability of their students, precisely because they can inflame the natural human predisposition to delusions of various kinds.

However, I am not going to remain silent about what I know to be true just because some people are attached to their ego-driven notions of 'purity'.

Here is Walter Evans-Wentz with Lama Kazi Dawa Samdup, with whom he translated Bardo Thodol (known as the Tibetan Book of the Dead). In that edition, you will find the footnote discussing Dalai Lamas traditional manufacture of psychedelics.

The Tibetans trusted him. He experienced their culture long before the idiotic controversy over drugs inflamed by corrupt law-enforcement in the USA. The 'war on drugs' has been one of the most lamentable, stupid witch-hunts in human history, and is itself responsible for the harmful aspects of the drug culture we see today. It has also financed ship-loads of US covert operations .... so keeping drugs both illegal and popular has had 'strategic advantages' for the US.

I've quoted it in its entirety because I feel that this is valuable information. Thank you. I - for one - appreciate your honesty.

Though I may disagree with many elements of Tibetan practice, I am constantly reminded through stories such as this one that the Dhamma is the Dhamma, and will always be the Dhamma.

It is how we choose to practice that structures our individual Buddhism.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is ridiculous.

I have examined my own experiences and the Dhamma, how they fit with each other, and come to the conclusion that I am uncomfortable with how many foreign substances affect my mind. This is not projection. This is interpretation and reflection.

You do not get to call me unaware because a conclusion I have reached differs from the one you have reached.

This.

 

[apophenia]

I've quoted it in its entirety because I feel that this is valuable information. Thank you. I - for one - appreciate your honesty.

Though I may disagree with many elements of Tibetan practice, I am constantly reminded through stories such as this one that the Dhamma is the Dhamma, and will always be the Dhamma.

It is how we choose to practice that structures our individual Buddhism.

Indeed. There are many 'fair weather sailors' out there, who are buddhas in their own minds - as long as it's quiet in their comfy little meditation room, and they are well fed and comfortable, and nothing much is happening.

 

[ratikala]

dear apophenia,

Clearly DL is a diplomat. His first answer reflected that - he is the public face of Tibet, seeking to gain wide support.

there is a great deal that I will agree with here , firstly yes the dalai lama is incredibly carefull in what he says , and for very good reasons .

I note he said 'should not rely on'.

"should not rely upon EXTERNAL METHODS "

I also remember that he sent Leonid Brezhnev some of his special medicine to cure avidya shortly before Brezhnev died in 1982. This is the medicine mentioned in Evans-Wentz's translation of Bardo Thodol - a psychedelic traditionally manufactured by the Dalai Lama. Evans-Wentz was one of the first westerners ever to live with the lamas in Tibet in the early 20th century, and gained all of his knowledge first-hand. He is a very reliable source.

I am not going to dispute either that things like this took place , the tibetan system of medicine is very different to our own yet I note that you say "medicine" so the use thereof is strictly controled .

I was fortunate to study with some of the last lamas actually born in Tibet. I know perfectly well what their attitude was - although it does vary to some degree - I studied mahamudra and dzogchen with the Kagyu, ( and some Nyingma ) who specialised in the 'vertical path' - the Gelugpa for example are way more conservative).

this is entirely true , yes gelugspa are deffinately more conservative , to make some sweeping generalisations (which I dont realy like to do), .... the revision by je tsongkhapa established a monastic dicipline which was intended to unify the practices of sutra and tantra and re establish a srtict frame work of moral or ethical code 'the vinaya' , thus returning tibetan buddism to something a little closer to the original teachings of the buddha .
this is not to say that the teaching methods of the older schools are invalid , but it does accentuate the fact that revision of some practices were needed especialy for the broad practice of buddism .

Whilst I am not suggesting that buddhists should take drugs, to suggest that Tibetan lamas never did is plain false. Also, 40% of Tibet's barley crop ( or was it oats ? one or the other) was used to make chang (beer) for the monasteries.

much like in medieval europe the production of what was known as 'small beer
(weak beer) was a method of ensuring a clean drinking suply , yes of course there is also strong beer which no duobt was reserved for special occasions , (and the oracle).
so yes there was alcahol and drug use , but within a controled enviroment .

My observation is that most casual recreational use of these drugs is superficial,and engaged in purely for the 'special effects'.

this I agree with in that the use you are talking about is within a controled enviroment and practiced only by experienced practitioners , HOWEVER EVEN STILL THERE ARE DANGERS IN SUCH PRACTICES , ..... thus I stressed before that RIGHT ACTION would dictate that one does nothing which might cause harm or detremental effect to either self or others .

. That is a very different scenario to using them in the context of disciplined meditation.

this however is vering away from buddhist practice and entering realms of tantric practice .

I AM NOT ENCOURAGING USE OF THESE DRUGS. THEY HAVE DANGERS FOR MANY PEOPLE, AND MERELY SWALLOWING A PILL WILL NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO STABLE INSIGHT. Some teachers in Tibet used them to test the stability of their students, precisely because they can inflame the natural human predisposition to delusions of various kinds.

and again I would also fully endorse the above , ....and it is for such reasons that the dalai lama clearly pointed out , that drug use is likely to ...."bring forth a greater profusion of ignorance"

However, I am not going to remain silent about what I know to be true just because some people are attached to their ego-driven notions of 'purity'.

to my mind it is not a question of "ego driven purity" , ...but a question of seperating some tantric practices from the teachings of the buddha .
particularly if we are discussing what practice is suitable for the buddhist lay comunity .

 

[apophenia]

and again I would also fully endorse the above , ....and it is for such reasons that the dalai lama clearly pointed out , that drug use is likely to ...."bring forth a greater profusion of ignorance"
to my mind it is not a question of "ego driven purity" , ...but a question of seperating some tantric practices from the teachings of the buddha .
particularly if we are discussing what practice is suitable for the buddhist lay comunity .

Basically then, we agree on many important points.

I do not advocate psychedelia as a general practice. And yes, it is more in the realm of tantric practice.

I have only persevered with this because of the consistent false, and in my opinion hysterical, statements made in this thread by some posters.

I agree that the reasonable and correct interpretation of the earliest sutras is that Gautama considered that teachers of the dharma should remain drug-free.

I also remind everyone that the words attributed to Gautama are an approximation arrived at a century after his death. That is just a fact of history.

So unless buddhists are going to adopt the hindu notion of sruti, and claim that those who compiled the tripitaka were guided by Divinity and that it is a 'revealed text' ( not really a buddhist position ), and infallible, there is always the need for reasoned judgement, the unavoidable necessity of personal interpretation. This seems to be difficult for some to grasp, and impossible for some to accept. Even if you 'believe' that Gautama was infallible, to make the leap to believing that a century after his death every word and nuanced meaning was infallibly recorded is a bit of a stretch. You really can't abdicate the responsibility of interpretation and personal judgement and remain true to the spirit of the teaching IMO.

And apart from the tripitaka, all of the subsequent mahayana texts were inventions in the spirit of Gautama.

The fact is, most of what many people think of as the words of Gautama simply are not so. They are inventions of unknown writers which have proved useful.

Tibetan buddhism was heavily influenced by Bon and by tantra, and there is a history of use of sex, drugs and alcohol. Not extensively. Not as typical practice. But it has always been there.

I doubt that many people would know that when the tantric buddhist iconography was developing, there was considerable debate among lamas about the cut of the yogini's loin cloth in the yab-yum images. It was decided ( well ahead of current fashion ! ) that she looked much sexier if the buttock cheeks were slightly revealed. In other words, the Tibetans had a different attitude to the Theravadins. Who knew ? I don't think Gautama had any comments on how much raunch was appropriate in the depiction of prajna. Not mentioned in the canonical sutras as far as I know.

To all those who claim that sex and drugs have never been part of Tibetan buddhism, I have just one word ...

Bollocks !

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I thought about this last night at work: how does one define "drug"? Do we define it different than in the Buddha's time? What exactly does one consider a drug? We're using terms and definitions that may not have been applicable in the Buddha's time.

 

[Ablaze]

5. Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

The Five Precepts: pañca-sila

In the Buddha's time, the term suramerayamajja denoted three types of alcohol: sura, meraya, and majja. These were some of the most widely (ab)used liquors and therefore warranted mention. In the modern era, the range of intoxicants has expanded considerably, while access, addiction, and abuse are greater than ever before. The equivalents of sura-meraya-majja would include everything from marijuana to alcohol to heroin, etc.

Generally, the wisest advice is to avoid intoxicating substances that "cloud the mind" and cause harm. Drug-induced states are not conducive to concentration (samadhi), ethical conduct (sila), or wisdom (prajna). It is more fruitful to cultivate the conditions for enlightenment naturally, in the absence of artificially-induced, altered neurological states.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought about this last night at work: how does one define "drug"? Do we define it different than in the Buddha's time? What exactly does one consider a drug? We're using terms and definitions that may not have been applicable in the Buddha's time.

To some extent, that must indeed be the case. It seems to me that therefore we have the responsibility to decide as wisely as we can how best to adapt and preserve the general idea.

For an obvious example, people did not drive or operate heavy machinery 2600 years ago, so the Tipitaka will have no warnings about the increased duty of keeping sober for those that do those things.

Personally, I happen to believe that our increased lifespans and ever-more-complex ties of mutual interdependency have made the importance of keeping a sober mind that much greater, to the point that any form of intoxication at all is pretty much automatically unwise. If anything, the demands for a clear mind and the consequences of failing at that are greater than ever.

I suppose I could think differently if I lived as a farmer with no contact to urban people or something similar, but that is not my intent.

 

[apophenia]

I've not caused any havoc or mayhem myself.

I am always aware of the 6 paramitas and strive to behave accordingly. Whenever I am influenced by alterations in my statistically normal neurological state, however that may come about, I retain my cognizance of moral precepts, fundamental 'commonsense' regarding safety of self and others, capacity to empathise, and in general a sense of benevolent goodwill to my fellow mysterious travellers. I am not a perfected bodhisattva in that regard, but I certainly qualify as 'mostly harmless'.

Regarding 'statistically normal neurological state', it is my view that genuine stable meditation is not bound to a specific state. It would be useless (and bogus) if it was. Luminous clarity is not predicated on a statistically normal brain state. In my experience the ground of awareness is the same irrespective of what channel my brain is tuned to.

That is an important point I think.

One teacher I met made the remark "We are teaching you to pack a parachute. If you ever need that parachute, you had better have packed it properly".

A major aspect of what he transmitted is that meditative poise matters in the most confronting, unexpected or uncomfortable situations, perhaps more than it matters when you are sitting crosslegged on your living room floor.

Practicing self-calming and good citizenship is one thing ; maintaining your practice regardless of circumstances is the sign of meditative practice which is more than just social obedience and a dharmic sentiment.

 

[crossfire]

I've not caused any havoc or mayhem myself.

I am always aware of the 6 paramitas and strive to behave accordingly. Whenever I am influenced by alterations in my statistically normal neurological state, however that may come about, I retain my cognizance of moral precepts, fundamental 'commonsense' regarding safety of self and others, capacity to empathise, and in general a sense of benevolent goodwill to my fellow mysterious travellers. I am not a perfected bodhisattva in that regard, but I certainly qualify as 'mostly harmless'.

Regarding 'statistically normal neurological state', it is my view that genuine stable meditation is not bound to a specific state. It would be useless (and bogus) if it was. Luminous clarity is not predicated on a statistically normal brain state. In my experience the ground of awareness is the same irrespective of what channel my brain is tuned to.

If you equate that ground of awareness/mindfulness with not allowing your mind to become overwhelmed by greed, hatred, or delusion, then yes, I agree.

That is an important point I think.

Paramount, imo.

One teacher I met made the remark "We are teaching you to pack a parachute. If you ever need that parachute, you had better have packed it properly".

A major aspect of what he transmitted is that meditative poise matters in the most confronting, unexpected or uncomfortable situations, perhaps more than it matters when you are sitting crosslegged on your living room floor.

Just as martial arts training/conditioning matters most when you really need it, so it is with meditation training/conditioning, imo. If you can take strong emotions to the cushion, so to speak, so much the better. If you can't, then being able to deal with them as they arise, even if you can't immediately take them to the cushion, is what it's all about, imo.

Practicing self-calming and good citizenship is one thing ; maintaining your practice regardless of circumstances is the sign of meditative practice which is more than just social obedience and a dharmic sentiment.

Agreed.

 

[maxfreakout]

The equivalents of sura-meraya-majja would include everything from marijuana to alcohol to heroin, etc.

This ^ is just arbitrary projection, if the Buddha meant to prohibit drugs other than alcohol, why would he have been so careful to explicitly single out alcohol in its various forms (distilled and fermented drinks), and make no mention of any other drugs?

Generally, the wisest advice is to avoid intoxicating substances that "cloud the mind" and cause harm. Drug-induced states are not conducive to concentration (samadhi), ethical conduct (sila), or wisdom (prajna). It is more fruitful to cultivate the conditions for enlightenment naturally, in the absence of artificially-induced, altered neurological states.

This ^ is more arbitrary projection, entirely divorced from actual Buddhist teachings.

 

[maxfreakout]

I thought about this last night at work: how does one define "drug"? Do we define it different than in the Buddha's time? What exactly does one consider a drug? We're using terms and definitions that may not have been applicable in the Buddha's time.

'drug' tends to mean plants and chemicals (and preparations thereof) which people ingest in order to alter the quality of experience in some way. For example alcohol is a drug, when it is ingested it causes a temporary change in the quality of experience (drunkenness). This concept of 'drug' is just as applicable to the Buddha's time as it is to modern times, this is indicated by the Buddha's own mention of 'intoxicating drinks that cause heedlessness'

 

[Ablaze]

This ^ is just arbitrary projection, if the Buddha meant to prohibit drugs other than alcohol, why would he have been so careful to explicitly single out alcohol in its various forms (distilled and fermented drinks), and make no mention of any other drugs?

This is not arbitrary projection. This is simple transplantation of 2,600 year old teachings (from a time when heroin, marijuana, etc. were not abused substances) to the modern era (where they are abused substances).

This ^ is more arbitrary projection, entirely divorced from actual Buddhist teachings.

This is not arbitrary projection. This is consistent with the Buddha's teachings as preserved in the Nikayas. If you disagree, there's no problem with that. No judgment passed upon you.

 

[max_freakout]

This is not arbitrary projection. This is simple transplantation of 2,600 year old teachings (from a time when heroin, marijuana, etc. were not abused substances) to the modern era (where they are abused substances).

There were hundreds of psychoactive plants and chemicals around in the Buddha's time including alcohol, marijuana and opium. Your assumption that these drugs were "not abused" back in those times is baseless, and directly in contradiction with what the buddhist teachings say (ie the fifth precept prohibition on alcohol abuse would indicate that alcohol was being used in those days), therefore it is reasonable to call it arbitrary projection. Why would you assume that marijuana was not used in the Buddha's time? The cultivation of the marijuana plant predates Buddhism by thousands of years

This is not arbitrary projection. This is consistent with the Buddha's teachings as preserved in the Nikayas.

The Buddha's teachings from the Nikayas do not mention any drugs besides alcohol, therefore your projection of modern antidrugs values onto ancient buddhist teachings is entirely inconsistent with what those ancient teachings actually say (and therefore arbitrary)

 

[Ablaze]

There's no need to become defensive. No one is judging you for your choices.

A thorough reading of the Pali Canon reveals that all intoxicating states are to be done away with, whether throughout extinction of mental intoxicants (āsava) or intoxicants in general (majja).

Would you expect the teachings to include, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink, [shooting heroin, snorting cocaine, inhalation and ingestion of methamphetamine, etc.] that causes heedlessness"? That type of expectation is as absurd as expecting the Buddha to teach, "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, [using one's iPhone, playing video games, watching TV, posting to www.religiousforums.org, checking email, logging onto Facebook, etc.] he makes himself fully alert. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body."

Your aggressiveness is baseless. Do as you want with drugs. Just don't expect the Buddha's teachings to back you up. They don't have to. Don't get too worked up about it.

 

[SageTree]

I can see how this is going to go.....

............ on a little longer.

 

[max_freakout]

A thorough reading of the Pali Canon reveals that all intoxicating states are to be done away with, whether throughout extinction of mental intoxicants (āsava) or intoxicants in general (majja).

This ^ is just deliberate mistranslation to support a biased projection:

The Pali word "majja" translates as "distilled alcoholic beverage"

the Pali word "asava" translates as "influx"

Would you expect the teachings to include, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink, [shooting heroin, snorting cocaine, inhalation and ingestion of methamphetamine, etc.] that causes heedlessness"?

The teaching explicitly mentions alcohol, in both its fermented and its distilled form. The wording here is unambiguous, the Buddhist teachings prohibit alcohol, and they are very clear and specific to indicate this in the fifth precept. No other intoxicant besides distilled and fermented alcoholic drinks are mentioned.

Why would the buddhist scripture be so explicit about alcohol, not just mentioning it but actually specifying the 2 forms it occurs in (distilled and fermented drink), and yet not even mention any other drug if the intention was to prohibit all drugs?

 

[Ablaze]

I can see how this is going to go.....

............ on a little longer.

Indeed. I will bow out in the spirit of non-attachment. May this topic be reborn under more favorable conditions, conducive to the Dharma.