Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[DreadFish]

I second This:

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

If there is true reality, all states occur in that reality. No state is any less real than any other. Why have insight that is conditional to a normal mental equilibrium?


And this:

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.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

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

inturpret it how you wish , but it constitutes a very large part of buddhism to many buddhists and has done so for many centurys

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Tantra is a much better approach.

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

I think your understanding of tantra and mine might just be different

and one day you will tire of sex, ..... prehaps when the body is old and infirm and nolonger performs its functions ?
either that or suffer extreme frustration ?

which might cause you to ask , ..."why am I so attatched to this bodily function" ?

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

I think we would both agree there are many forms of tantra .

Not true.

not true , according to your thinking .

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'.

firstly to debate with you would be pointless , however I am allways happy to discuss any topic .

I have no wish to put you in a position of breaking any rule .

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.

I am not arguing that this is not so , but I am suggesting that we learn to rely upon states that are generated by our own practice which are therefore more reliably atainable without recourse to outside intervention .

to me , .... and I repeat, to me ! .... meditation is a method of owercoming obsticals , ... yes , there are pernitious obsticals , but that simply highlights the need for sincere and regular practice .

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 ...

the cycle of birth , old age , sickness , and death his samsaric realm equates to dukkha

Suffering is endless

I think your statement some what contradicts the four knobe truths ?
for an unbiased translation , .....

quote Wickipedia ,....

1. "This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha."
2. "This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."
3. "This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."
4. "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration." [15][e][f]

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 ?

of course one in samsaric existance feels sadness at the temporary loss of any dear or loved one but that sence of loss is tempered by reflections on imperminance , thus we can accept greif and loss without the same degree of suffering that one might otherwise experience .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram dreadfish ji

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

agreed after all drugs are only chemical compounds and many foods contain chemical compounds in varying degrees .

the only reason some substances are deemed to be ilegal is that the chemical compounds are concidered to be detremental , hazardous or possibly toxic ?

If it were only that easy to have that much sex

Ah, .... then prehaps you will get fed up with trying to get enough 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.

agreed there is benifit to be derived from all situtions , if the situation occurs use it as part of your practice , but the question is should we introduce artificial situations ?

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.

agreed , we can and should look from all perspectives including the perspectives of others" This is not to say that the altered perspective is more valuable,", .. no but it has been concidered that is probably the most important thing .

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.

but here you have benifited even by the experience of wasting time , this is a valuable experience and will colour your choice of action (or lack of) in the future ,

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.

yes this is true , but we are to use a little discriminating wisdom ....and if we feel we have none then we rely upon a teacher who we feel posesses such qualities .
many of the txts we read are composed by such teachers or handed down through deciplic succession where one would hope if invalid asertations were put forward that some wise soul would have noticed ?

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.

may be a topic for later discussion?

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.

agreed

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.

another interestingdescision for discussion , ....unfortunately I too am out of time this morning :namaste

You're right. I just had to say something

likewise

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

jai jai

 

[apophenia]

namaskaram :namaste

I think your understanding of tantra and mine might just be different

and one day you will tire of sex, ..... prehaps when the body is old and infirm and nolonger performs its functions ?
either that or suffer extreme frustration ?

You're right, our understanding is entirely different

I am old enough to be past being driven by sexual desire. I was referring to humans in general. They're not all old like us.

Tantric sexual practices are irrelevant to someone who is not subject to powerful sexual drive - generally suitable for younger people in other words.

You seem to be unable to grasp that I may not be endorsing practices because I do them. When you get the message, hang up the phone ! Any specific tantric practice is not something that someone is likely to do for an entire lifetime.

The practices which people do for an entire lifetime are typically practices which have never worked.That's why the practitioner is still doing them !

Psychedelics are not something which I am recommending to anyone either btw. I only persist in this thread because fundamental misunderstandings about the subject are being consistently presented.

which might cause you to ask , ..."why am I so attatched to this bodily function" ?

Yeah, I did ask that decades ago. Your assumptions are missing by miles Ratikala.

Hopefully something will cause you to ask ... 'why am I still practicing techniques which lead to nothing but predictable states ?' That is grasping after 'repeatable states' , and aversion to the unexpected !

I think we would both agree there are many forms of tantra .

Possibly, but so far you seem to have not grasped the particular form we are discussing.

I am not arguing that this is not so , but I am suggesting that we learn to rely upon states that are generated by our own practice which are therefore more reliably atainable without recourse to outside intervention .

You are addicted to 'states' and certainty.

to me , .... and I repeat, to me ! .... meditation is a method of owercoming obsticals , ... yes , there are pernitious obsticals , but that simply highlights the need for sincere and regular practice .

So, presumably if you are still practicing sincerely, that highlights the fact of your pernicious obstacles.

So how's the practice going ? Same as ever ?

the cycle of birth , old age , sickness , and death his samsaric realm equates to dukkha
I think your statement some what contradicts the four knobe truths ?
for an unbiased translation , .....

of course one in samsaric existance feels sadness at the temporary loss of any dear or loved one but that sence of loss is tempered by reflections on imperminance , thus we can accept greif and loss without the same degree of suffering that one might otherwise experience .

Most ordinary people with no dharma training whatsoever work that out for themselves when they lose a loved one.

You missed the meaning of my post, and you miss the point of the noble truths also IMO.

The cessation of suffering is not an event in linear time. It is always present as nirvana, which is not an ephemeral 'state'.

Nirvana may or may not be recognised.It is not an 'end game'.
Whatever 'states' you are practicing (rehearsing) are all samsara.

You are equating the wisdom of liberation in the moment with a sentimental indulgence in the platitudes of impermanence. This is the banality which comes of practicing 'states' and 'certainty'.

 

[Me Myself]

namaskaram :namaste



inturpret it how you wish , but it constitutes a very large part of buddhism to many buddhists and has done so for many centurys

The only prohibitions Buddha followed strictly were eventually broken at least once so he could be enlightened.

Bddha had tules for his monks, but "buddhism" doesnt have "rules" for anyone.

It is a method. Confusing a method with an autocrat is kinda weird.

 

[Straw Dog]

Admittedly, certain substances may assist in "blowing one's mind". However, without a primary method of meditation, any energy released tends to be unfocused and largely wasted. Besides that, the liberated mind isn't dependent upon anything except its original nature.

 

[crossfire]

**Breaks out the Sword of Wisdom that is the Kalama Sutta and its parallel, the Salha Sutta**

Does the use of the drug lead to greed, hatred, or delusion? If yes, then reject it!

From the Salha Sutta:

"Come, Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with a liking for a view after pondering it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The monk is our teacher.' When you know in yourself 'These things are unprofitable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. What do you think? Is there greed?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "Covetousness is the meaning of that, I say. Through greed a covetous man kills breathing things, takes what is not given, commits adultery, and utters falsehood, and he gets another to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "What do you think, is there hate?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "Ill-will is the meaning of that, I say. Through hate a malevolent man kills breathing things... Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "What do you think? Is there delusion?" — "Yes, venerable sir." — "Ignorance is the meaning of that, I say. Through ignorance a deluded man kills breathing things... Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
"What do you think? Are these things profitable or unprofitable?" — "Unprofitable, venerable sir." — "Reprehensible or blameless?" — "Reprehensible, venerable sir." — "Condemned or commended by the wise?" — "Condemned by the wise, venerable sir." — "Being adopted and put into effect, do they lead to harm and suffering, or do they not, or how does it appear to you in this case?" — "Being adopted and put into effect, venerable sir, they lead to harm and suffering. So it appears in this case." — "Now that was the reason why I told you 'Come Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay... When you know in yourself "These things are unprofitable," then you should abandon them.'​

 

[crossfire]

You're right, our understanding is entirely different

I am old enough to be past being driven by sexual desire. I was referring to humans in general. They're not all old like us.

Tantric sexual practices are irrelevant to someone who is not subject to powerful sexual drive - generally suitable for younger people in other words.

You seem to be unable to grasp that I may not be endorsing practices because I do them. When you get the message, hang up the phone ! Any specific tantric practice is not something that someone is likely to do for an entire lifetime.

Anything like the Vulcan Pon farr of Star Trek?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

You're right, our understanding is entirely different

amazing isnt it , I say "might be".. because I am in the habit of examining all possibilities , .....you pick up on "different" an make it an afirmative

I am old enough to be past being driven by sexual desire. I was referring to humans in general. They're not all old like us.

sadly age dosent seem to stop some peoples desires .

You seem to be unable to grasp that I may not be endorsing practices because I do them. When you get the message, hang up the phone ! Any specific tantric practice is not something that someone is likely to do for an entire lifetime.

then it would seem wrongly .

again I think you missunderstand me on various subjects ?
or more you seem to jump to the conclusion as to what I am thinking and that I am against you ?

The practices which people do for an entire lifetime are typically practices which have never worked.That's why the practitioner is still doing them !

the simple practice of meditation is something we do all of our lives , not because we are still trying to overcome the same obstical but because we have overcome one obstical and we are working on the next .

Psychedelics are not something which I am recommending to anyone either btw. I only persist in this thread because fundamental misunderstandings about the subject are being consistently presented.

I understand fully that you are not promoting or recomending , ....

Yeah, I did ask that decades ago. Your assumptions are missing by miles Ratikala.

my remarks were in general and were not assumptions particularly aimed in your direction ,

Hopefully something will cause you to ask ... 'why am I still practicing techniques which lead to nothing but predictable states ?' That is grasping after 'repeatable states' , and aversion to the unexpected !

from a personal perspective I would say that I practice ataining the "predictable state" of clear mindedness so that I might further my inderstanding from that point .

just as one does not attatch to the state of clenliness atained from the habit of washing in the morning , it is simply something one does before embarking on the day .

Possibly, but so far you seem to have not grasped the particular form we are discussing.

oh dear , ... something else you think I have not grasped ......

You are addicted to 'states' and certainty.

???

So, presumably if you are still practicing sincerely, that highlights the fact of your pernicious obstacles.

So how's the practice going ? Same as ever ?

Most ordinary people with no dharma training whatsoever work that out for themselves when they lose a loved one.

You missed the meaning of my post, and you miss the point of the noble truths also IMO.

and now after all my years you are telling me that Ive missunderstood the most basic teaching , .......I give up ,

The cessation of suffering is not an event in linear time. It is always present as nirvana, which is not an ephemeral 'state'.

Nirvana may or may not be recognised.It is not an 'end game'.
Whatever 'states' you are practicing (rehearsing) are all samsara.

You are equating the wisdom of liberation in the moment with a sentimental indulgence in the platitudes of impermanence. This is the banality which comes of practicing 'states' and 'certainty'.

? ........am I ? are you sure

 

[SageTree]

I don't mean to be off topic....

But I need to add something here:

 

[apophenia]

Nooo ! There's nothing down there but madness ! Think about your Primordial Purity Alice !

Spoiler: large picture

 

[apophenia]

You'll need an expanded screen to view that.

 

[crossfire]

Nooo ! There's nothing down there but madness ! Think about your Primordial Purity Alice !

No need to be clinging to the drug-induced makyo, either....

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Please refrain from debating in the DIR and keep Rule 10* in mind while posting.

If you wish to debate any particular topic(s), feel free to do so by starting a thread in the appropriate forum section.

*Rule 10:

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums/Same Faith Debates/"Only Sections"
The DIR subforums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. DIR areas are not to be used as cover to bash others outside the faith. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored blue, non-members of that area are limited only to respectful questions, and are not allowed to make any non-question posts.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

The Same Faith Debates subforum is specifically for debate between members of the same faith. Members that are not part of a same faith debate thread's selected faith may not post at all in those threads. The Political "Only" subforums are also used specifically for that group and may not be posted in by members that do not correspond to the political position of the subforum. These two forums are colored purple.