Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[Straw Dog]

It seems that we have two gents seeking to freak out maximally. Have you guys tried any forms of meditation? It's the all-natural mind ****.

 

[crossfire]

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

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

LOL! I'm not gonna post the Vinaya texts about drugs again. It seems that they conveniently seem to forget about them. Hmmm......:cover:

 

[apophenia]

LOL! I'm not gonna post the Vinaya texts about drugs again. It seems that they conveniently seem to forget about them. Hmmm......:cover:

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the vinaya texts. They were intended for those who seek ordination, and set out some basic guidelines specifically for those people. My posts are basically to answer the extreme and hysterical notions that some RF members have, and provide some balance to their simplistic anti-drug propaganda.

It seems that some buddhists feel smugly superior to people who believe in the devil, but basically display the same combination of irrational fear and holier-than-thou which characterises such infantile believers. As regards drugs, they are playing the game called "Isn't it awful ?" as described by Dr Eric Berne in his book 'Games People Play', which introduced Transactional Analysis.

 

[apophenia]

It seems that we have two gents seeking to freak out maximally. Have you guys tried any forms of meditation? It's the all-natural mind ****.

Given that I am the only person other than maxfreakout who is arguing against drug hysteria, I can only assume that this remark is also aimed at me.

If so, you misunderstand me completely. I have used psychedelics in the past. They were very valuable experiences.

Those experiences were preceeded by some years of meditation and trance induction of various kinds ( 'self-hypnosis' as it was then called, chanting, breath techniques...) starting when I was about 15.

I have also done years of meditation (with instruction from Theravadin and Tibetan teachers),including various meditation retreats, many extended solo wilderness retreats, and recently 5 years of dedicated Iyengar yoga practice.

I am well aware of both the 'all-natural mind ****' as you call it, and the use of various amritas. I am in a position to give informed comment on both. So there's really no call for you to try to teach your grandfather to suck eggs young fella.

 

[LuisDantas]

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the vinaya texts. They were intended for those who seek ordination, and set out some basic guidelines specifically for those people.

True enough. And that, of course, means that it is our responsibility to decide how best to adjust their teachings to the current cultural circunstances. It seems to me that the case for keeping their general guidelines is far stronger than that for ignoring them, regardless of whether one seeks ordination or not. It is certainly not obvious that they may or should be ignored, at least. As I have argued in the previous page, if anything they are far more needed than they were at the time.

My posts are basically to answer the extreme and hysterical notions that some RF members have, and provide some balance to their simplistic anti-drug propaganda.

Labelling disagreement - well-argued and well-sourced disagreement at that - in such a way strikes me as quite improper, frankly.

It seems that some buddhists feel smugly superior to people who believe in the devil, but basically display the same combination of irrational fear and holier-than-thou which characterises such infantile believers. As regards drugs, they are playing the game called "Isn't it awful ?" as described by Dr Eric Berne in his book 'Games People Play', which introduced Transactional Analysis.

Such certainty about what other people do, think and believe in is, shall I say, considerably less than prudent and wise.

 

[crossfire]

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the vinaya texts. They were intended for those who seek ordination, and set out some basic guidelines specifically for those people. My posts are basically to answer the extreme and hysterical notions that some RF members have, and provide some balance to their simplistic anti-drug propaganda.

Do you think this is what Buddha was talking about in the Saddha Sutta about lay persons having conviction?

It seems that some buddhists feel smugly superior to people who believe in the devil, but basically display the same combination of irrational fear and holier-than-thou which characterises such infantile believers. As regards drugs, they are playing the game called "Isn't it awful ?" as described by Dr Eric Berne in his book 'Games People Play', which introduced Transactional Analysis.

Are you sure you are not projecting this onto them? When you see the suffering that occurs with drug abuse, are those who try to steer others away from abusing drugs really "smugly superior?"

 

[apophenia]

When you see the suffering that occurs with drug abuse, are those who try to steer others away from abusing drugs really "smugly superior?"

I have read many posts which I would describe that way. Many people make sweeping generalisations which include me, and which are quite wrong.

Generally speaking, 'dangerous drugs of abuse' means drugs like heroin, amphetamine and crack - these are not the drugs used by people seeking insight ( which is what max-f was referring to IMO). I fully understand the desire to shepherd the vulnerable away from dangerous and addictive substances.

But I will not resile from providing a balanced perspective when disinformation is disseminated.

 

[apophenia]

are those who try to steer others away from abusing drugs really "smugly superior?"

You have taken that phrase entirely out of the context in which I used it.

 

[crossfire]

I have read many posts which I would describe that way. Many people make sweeping generalisations which include me, and which are quite wrong.

Generally speaking, 'dangerous drugs of abuse' means drugs like heroin, amphetamine and crack - these are not the drugs used by people seeking insight ( which is what max-f was referring to IMO). I fully understand the desire to shepherd the vulnerable away from dangerous and addictive substances.

But I will not resile from providing a balanced perspective when disinformation is disseminated.

Well, the insight that I have gained through my drug use years ago is that I prefer balanced and settled mindfulness. Your mileage may vary.

 

[apophenia]

Well, the insight that I have gained through my drug use years ago is that I prefer balanced and settled mindfulness. Your mileage may vary.

With no idea of your personal history, there is no reasonable way to respond to that.

However, a lot of folk (such as ex-servicemen with PTSD ) could gain great benefit from certain kinds of therapy which remains illegal.

Three cheers for that :no:

And a lot of folk are in prison and more will go to prison for no good reason. Some may say "that is their fault for breaking the law", but do they say that when a muslim woman is stoned for adultery in a country where that is law , for example ?

 

[crossfire]

With no idea of your personal history, there is no reasonable way to respond to that.

However, a lot of folk (such as ex-servicemen with PTSD ) could gain great benefit from certain kinds of therapy which remains illegal.

That sort of treatment, where there is a need, would not constitute drug abuse. Even the Vinaya allows any drug if there is a need. It even specifically cites bhang.

Three cheers for that :no:

Since when has this become a thread about drug legality?

And a lot of folk are in prison and more will go to prison for no good reason. Some may say "that is their fault for breaking the law", but do they say that when a muslim woman is stoned for adultery in a country where that is law , for example ?

Hey, drug legalization is not what this thread is about. (I'm of a libertarian political bent, however.)

 

[ratikala]

However, a lot of folk (such as ex-servicemen with PTSD ) could gain great benefit from certain kinds of therapy which remains illegal.

when any drug is used clinicaly to treat a diagnosed condition it becomes a medicine .
when any substance is used outside of the prescribed and controled clinical use , it understandably becomes illigal usage.

And a lot of folk are in prison and more will go to prison for no good reason. Some may say "that is their fault for breaking the law", but do they say that when a muslim woman is stoned for adultery in a country where that is law , for example ?

the un licenced use of drugs is subject to law simply to curb the sale or suply of substances that might be harmfull in the user , due to the comercial trade in drugs many impurities are to be found in un licenced drugs and without controled usage there is every possibility of some people coming to harm .

I agree that there are some herbal medicines and drugs to which you have refered that if used in the correct way by experienced practitioners may have benificial usage .
but the subject was intoxicants , are durgs intoxicants ?

 

[ratikala]

Well, the insight that I have gained through my drug use years ago is that I prefer balanced and settled mindfulness.

jai jai :namaste

 

[Me Myself]

Buddhism doesnt prohibit drugs anymore than driving lessons prohibit you from not-driving a car.

Buddhism is a tecnique, a method to leave suffering away. It doesnt prohibit you anything. It just teaches you how to reach nirvana. Whether you want to follow the teachings and reach it is entirely up to you.

 

[ratikala]

Buddhism is a tecnique, a method to leave suffering away. It doesnt prohibit you anything. It just teaches you how to reach nirvana. Whether you want to follow the teachings and reach it is entirely up to you.

If one wants to follow the teachings then it is best that one also follows the accompaning recomendations , one embarking with seriousness upon the buddhist path makes simple vows , it is up to you which vows you take as a lay practitioner but for ordained members it is a serious offence to break ones vows and the vows are non negociable . Therefore I would call that a prohibition .

The pratimoksa , Five vows for lay practitioners , the five silas (five moral diciplines)


To refrain from killing.
To refrain from stealing.
To refrain from false and idle speech.
To refrain from sexual misconduct.
To refrain from using intoxicants.

There are however seven types of lay practitioners ,

Those who choose to keep just one vow .
Those who choose to keep certain vows.
Those who choose to keep most of them.
Those who choose to keep all five.
Those who keep all five and who also promise to keep the pure conduct of avoiding sexual contact.
Those who keep all five,who keep pure conduct, and who wear robes with the promise to behave like a monk or a nun.
Lay follower of mere refuge. This person is unable to keep the vows but he promises to go for refuge to the triple gem until death.


It is up to you what commitment you wish to make , but once a vow is taken in my book that is a self imposed prohibition .

 

[DreadFish]

Not that this is a very constructive conversation but, I quite agree with apophenia. I see a couple extremes, and I see a more balanced perspective.

The mind is ALWAYS under the influence of numerous things. The "normal" state of mind is a balance of all the usual conditions. Add another condition and things are different. Even just drinking municipal water can effect your mind (usually negatively). Even eating wheat can effect the mind, also likely negatively.

SO, like I said before, anything is in what you make of it. A substance that changes the state of the mind is not inherently here nor there, its in how you use it. Like how I can go to a zen sitting session and think about sex for the most part of the hour . Or, one can ingest a certain substance and, in the midst of the effects, observe the way things are, and the way things feel.


Im not presenting those two as an equal comparison, just various examples.

when any drug is used clinicaly to treat a diagnosed condition it becomes a medicine .

So, what if a certain substance were used for altered perspective with the purpose of observing and learning?


Im not arguing that the Pali Suttas allow a loophole for the use of such things as marijuana and psychedelics which may allow for practicing insight into the present; I personally think MaxFreakout is insisting on that far too much. Its unnecessary. The suttas are pretty straight forward in their recommendation to not change the equilibrium of the mind. They are also very old scriptures that are likely not entirely factual. Also, in the context, the Buddha had a group of people to manage, keep harmonious and present a positive face to the public so that he could spread teachings.


Im also not saying that altered perspectives are inherently useful or helpful.


It's all in what you do with it.


Does Buddhism prohibit drugs? The teachings in the Pali Suttas prohibit altering the natural equilibrium of the mind. It even recommends that one avoid music and big gatherings. As apophenia has stated, in Tibet, there are occasions of the use of mind altering substances. In Thailand, a lot of monks smoke cigarettes. In Japan and China a lot of monks consume lots of caffeine.

Besides the straightforward answer that, yes, the pali suttas prohibit mind altering substances, this is not a black and white issue.

 

[Me Myself]

If one wants to follow the teachings then it is best that one also follows the accompaning recomendations , one embarking with seriousness upon the buddhist path makes simple vows , it is up to you which vows you take as a lay practitioner but for ordained members it is a serious offence to break ones vows and the vows are non negociable . Therefore I would call that a prohibition .

The pratimoksa , Five vows for lay practitioners , the five silas (five moral diciplines)


To refrain from killing.
To refrain from stealing.
To refrain from false and idle speech.
To refrain from sexual misconduct.
To refrain from using intoxicants.

There are however seven types of lay practitioners ,

Those who choose to keep just one vow .
Those who choose to keep certain vows.
Those who choose to keep most of them.
Those who choose to keep all five.
Those who keep all five and who also promise to keep the pure conduct of avoiding sexual contact.
Those who keep all five,who keep pure conduct, and who wear robes with the promise to behave like a monk or a nun.
Lay follower of mere refuge. This person is unable to keep the vows but he promises to go for refuge to the triple gem until death.


It is up to you what commitment you wish to make , but once a vow is taken in my book that is a self imposed prohibition .

Sure, but it is a SELF IMPOSED prohibition. Not a prohibition imposed by buddhism.

 

[ratikala]

Not that this is a very constructive conversation but, I quite agree with apophenia. I see a couple extremes, and I see a more balanced perspective.

The mind is ALWAYS under the influence of numerous things. The "normal" state of mind is a balance of all the usual conditions. Add another condition and things are different. Even just drinking municipal water can effect your mind (usually negatively). Even eating wheat can effect the mind, also likely negatively.

to the best of our abilities we should seek to minimise any substance with a detremental effect on the body as you rightly say it has an eventual effect on the mind ,......pure food =pure body = pure mind

SO, like I said before, anything is in what you make of it. A substance that changes the state of the mind is not inherently here nor there, its in how you use it. Like how I can go to a zen sitting session and think about sex for the most part of the hour

.

why wast your time meditating if you think constantly of sex , have sex untill you are fed up with sex , untill sex bores you ridged , then meditate

Or, one can ingest a certain substance and, in the midst of the effects, observe the way things are, and the way things feel.

you simply observe the way things are at that given moment under the effects of said substance . the object of meditation is to realise such states if they are true states , naturaly and to be able to reliably repeat them when ever required .

Im not presenting those two as an equal comparison, just various examples.

no comparison taken

So, what if a certain substance were used for altered perspective with the purpose of observing and learning?

I am not trying to be difficult , but learning what ?

Im not arguing that the Pali Suttas allow a loophole for the use of such things as marijuana and psychedelics which may allow for practicing insight into the present; I personally think MaxFreakout is insisting on that far too much. Its unnecessary. The suttas are pretty straight forward in their recommendation to not change the equilibrium of the mind. They are also very old scriptures that are likely not entirely factual.

either we follow buddhism because we see the wisdom in the teachings , or we dissregard them as being lacking in wisdom , that is for each of us to conscider .

Also, in the context, the Buddha had a group of people to manage, keep harmonious and present a positive face to the public so that he could spread teachings.

that is what you asume or impute upon buddha and his deciples reasoning or motivation ???

buddha taught a system called the eight fold path , it was for those who could identify that samsaric life is basicaly dukka . personaly I dont think it was a publicity campaign every one was free to examine and on the strength of their examination take it or leave it .

Im also not saying that altered perspectives are inherently useful or helpful.

that is for each to arive at independantly .

It's all in what you do with it.

and possibly one might find after trial and error that there is little to be done with it , it just is , .... then what ?

Does Buddhism prohibit drugs? The teachings in the Pali Suttas prohibit altering the natural equilibrium of the mind. It even recommends that one avoid music and big gatherings. As apophenia has stated, in Tibet, there are occasions of the use of mind altering substances. In Thailand, a lot of monks smoke cigarettes. In Japan and China a lot of monks consume lots of caffeine.

what did a certain a certain venerable sage say about hitting dead animals with sticks ???

Besides the straightforward answer that, yes, the pali suttas prohibit mind altering substances, this is not a black and white issue.

best thing I can suggest is that any one intent on bending the rules to suit their own attatchments allso continues to do it untill they tire of it , it may be in this life time , or maybe the next , who knows ? ...but may be they dont get another human birth for a very long time if they waste this one , the chioce is yours .

 

[apophenia]

why wast your time meditating if you think constantly of sex , have sex untill you are fed up with sex , untill sex bores you ridged , then meditate

Tantra is a much better approach.

Waiting until you are fed up with sex could take a while for most people ...

The whole point of tantra is realising nirvana in the context of dynamic states.

you simply observe the way things are at that given moment under the effects of said substance . the object of meditation is to realise such states if they are true states , naturaly and to be able to reliably repeat them when ever required .

Not true.

I am not trying to be difficult , but learning what ?

I would love to answer this question comprehensively, but with Rule 6 I am obliged to debate you 'with my hands tied behind my back'.

Suffice it to say that the primary effect of some psychedelics is to dissolve the barrier which prevents seeing those aspects of our psyche which we find threatening and do not wish to recognise as our traits. Others suspend habitual responses, effectively switching off the filter we call personality.

What may be learned under such such circumstances is possibly very personal in the former case, and very general in the latter.

buddha taught a system called the eight fold path , it was for those who could identify that samsaric life is basicaly dukka

No, Gautama said life is basically dukha. He did not say samsaric life.That phrase is your own invention.Suffering is endless. Nirvana is present even in suffering.That is a very important point ...

What is it if you are experiencing pain without craving or aversion ?

Even accomplished meditators will be suffering old age, loss of loved ones, and death.Do you really think you can somehow avoid that ?

 

[DreadFish]

to the best of our abilities we should seek to minimise any substance with a detremental effect on the body as you rightly say it has an eventual effect on the mind ,......pure food =pure body = pure mind
.

True. But what I was pointing to is the fact that a very many things influence the state of the mind besides "drugs".

why wast your time meditating if you think constantly of sex , have sex untill you are fed up with sex , untill sex bores you ridged , then meditate

If it were only that easy to have that much sex

But what I meant is that the benefit or detriment of a thing lies in what you do with it, not what it is.

you simply observe the way things are at that given moment under the effects of said substance . the object of meditation is to realise such states if they are true states , naturaly and to be able to reliably repeat them when ever required .

Im not sure what you mean by "realize such states if they are true states". Whats a "true" state? All states are what they are. Anyway, what im getting at is the potential value of different perspectives. You know how we all have a perspective on something. Sometimes someone has a different perspective on something (kind of like in this thread ), and sometimes they express it and you might have not thought of things from that perspective, and after having considered a different perspectives, you have a broader point of view regarding that subject. In this case, we are talking about experiencing things from a different perspective. This is not to say that the altered perspective is more valuable, it is to say that having experienced things from a different perspective has the potential to provide a wider point of view regarding things in general. I could say my first experience with an altered point of view really blew my mind. I didnt even realize that reality could be anything but the way it always had been. The value in the way I took that experience is that I realized that reality is more broad and "far out" that I could have expected. I lived in a bigger world after that.

I am not trying to be difficult , but learning what ?

Anything. I have learned various things from all kinds of different experiences. The altered experiences that we are discussing have been no less valuable in general. I wont say that all of the altered experiences I have had have been valuable. I have wasted time, and I knew it afterward. It really is in what you do with it.

either we follow buddhism because we see the wisdom in the teachings , or we dissregard them as being lacking in wisdom , that is for each of us to conscider .

What I mean is that, like other scriptures, they are very old and have gone through many people. It is very possible that there are variances in what is recorded vs. what was actually spoken.

that is what you asume or impute upon buddha and his deciples reasoning or motivation ???

Im referencing an article, I think by Thannissaro Bikkhu, that I once read (im too lazy to look for it right now ) in which he talked about the reasons behind some of the rules in the Vinaya.

buddha taught a system called the eight fold path , it was for those who could identify that samsaric life is basicaly dukka . personaly I dont think it was a publicity campaign every one was free to examine and on the strength of their examination take it or leave it .
that is for each to arive at independantly .

I agree, I dont mean to imply that it was an publicity campaign. Kind of like how, as it's been said here on the forum, the Dalai Lama has to be careful with his answers to questions and that sort of thing; Gautama Buddha likely had to maintain harmony and make sure his followers were not known to be of questionable conduct. Thus he had a strict code of conduct to insure peace and make sure his teachings were not associated with questionable conduct. Its not that touching a female would make a monk less virtuous, but there were occasions in which misunderstandings could occur, so its best to maintain parameters that prevent such events from occurring.

and possibly one might find after trial and error that there is little to be done with it , it just is , .... then what ?

Well, Drukpa Kunley, after having attained his highest realization, gave back his vows and robe and abandoned the religious life. When something no longer has use, no need to keep it up. That doesn't discount the possibility that it had some use to begin with.

what did a certain a certain venerable sage say about hitting dead animals with sticks ???

You're right. I just had to say something

best thing I can suggest is that any one intent on bending the rules to suit their own attatchments allso continues to do it untill they tire of it , it may be in this life time , or maybe the next , who knows ? ...but may be they dont get another human birth for a very long time if they waste this one , the chioce is yours .

Well, be a light unto yourselves, and all that jazz