Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[Murkve]

Anything to justify it I guess. Clear air, clear lungs, clear blood and clear thinking all go together.

But Vinayaka, don't you know? Those things can all be achieved with just a daily dose of Nibbanarol®!

 

[apophenia]

i think it is better to know the truth than to dwell in falsehood and confusion, such as the artificial antidrugs projection that is rife in modern buddhism

What I would like to hear from you is why you want to make this an issue on a buddhist forum which is clearly almost exclusively anti-drugs.

I am not an 'anti-drugs' person. I am well aware of the potentials of many different forms of mind-altering substances. But I don't see what you can achieve by having this one-sided 'debate'. And really, leaving aside some of the details of Tibet and the use of psychedelics there in the past, Buddhism and drugs are not the same topic. Unless you make them so in your own life, of course.

There is nothing but the law (and its effect on the marketplace - you generally simply can't buy 4-bromo2,5 dimethoxyphenethylamine for example) preventing you from using drugs if you want to. You don't need the permission of traditional buddhists.

An important point here is that most mind-altering compounds (such as the example I just gave) have been isolated or synthesised since the time of Gautama. And also since Jesus, and Mohammed. Hundreds of psychedelic compounds have appeared in the last 30 years. So really, those many hundreds of compounds have never been 'assessed' by a major saint, prophet or holyman. There is simply no 'informed opinion' about them from that perspective.

Neurochemistry is becoming more finely tuned as time passes. But it is not in the purview of dharma teachings generally.

Personally, I think that if Gautama had witnessed the outcomes of using some of the new phenethylamines, he would likely have considered them a boon to humanity. Similarly, I think that if even the most conservative (even inimical) posters here knew personally precisely what some of these compounds do, they would acknowledge that drugs don't necessarily mean 'intoxication' and 'unwholesomeness'.

But since none of that is going to happen, its a pointless exercise arguing.

 

[Murkve]

My apologies if I have come across as hostile. This is a sensitive subject for me, and I have seen too many people come under the opinion that their minds are more akin to toys or vehicles to escape reality rather than vessels for knowledge of the world.

This is something that is very hard for me to admit, but if a pharmaceutical were to be developed and proven after years of rigorous trials to be an effective cognitive enhancer, with no delusionary side-effects, I would consider its use. Though I am Buddhist, I am also a bit of a Transhumanist, and look forward to advances in technology that would expand our definition of humanity - or even consciousness itself. My two sincere wishes before I die are to see Humans on Mars, and Synthetic Intelligence.

I guess one of the issues I find with drugs are that their beneficial effects are inherently transient. I would much rather make use of a more permanent option to increase mental acuity, whether it is in the form of silicon, or a piece of biotechnology.

Please note, that I believe that these options still exist in the distant future, and am at the present more prone to put my trust in my own mind, and always recommend that others do the same.

 

[crossfire]

1) The Dhamma stands on its own. Does it matter what the Buddha himself said? You asked specifically about "Buddhist Tradition", and that means that, at the very least, you cannot just disregard the opinion of the majority of modern Buddhists.

2) You live in the modern era, not in 550 BCE. Why are you so fixated on that timeframe when your experience is of the present one?

3) In my readings of scriptures, I have seen no references specifically condoning recreational drug use. Even in the passages presented here as evidence it is not specifically clear. You are positing that early Buddhism condoned recreational mind-altering substances. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. A loophole in the original Pali is not permission and not proof.

The passages I've presented from the Vinaya Pitaka have mentioned hemp as a medicine, but have prohibited its use unless one is sick--i.e., monks are not to engage in recreational drug use.

(For wind affliction in the limbs): "I allow a sweating treatment." ... "I allow a sweating treatment with herbs ... a 'great-sweating' treatment... hemp water... a water tub." — Mv.VI.14.3

​

Mahavagga 6 mentions all sorts of drugs that a monk may use when ill, including hemp, but using the drug when not ill (recreational use) is considered to be an offense.

Here's the Great Standards from the Vinaya: Mahavagga 6:1, by which to tell if something not listed is permitted or not:
Vinaya-samukkamsa: The Innate Principles of the Vinaya

Now at that time uncertainty arose in the monks with regard to this and that item: "Now what is allowed by the Blessed One? What is not allowed?" They told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said):
"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.
"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you."​

 

[apophenia]

My apologies if I have come across as hostile. This is a sensitive subject for me, and I have seen too many people come under the opinion that their minds are more akin to toys or vehicles to escape reality rather than vessels for knowledge of the world.

I certainly get that.

This is something that is very hard for me to admit, but if a pharmaceutical were to be developed and proven after years of rigorous trials to be an effective cognitive enhancer, with no delusionary side-effects, I would consider its use.

Aniracetam fits that bill. Also noopept (related), although there is not much research data outside of Russia. Very good though IMO. Also legal and cheap.

This is probably where this thread has some interest. I doubt that the effects of aniracetam or noopept would be regarded as 'intoxication' by anyone. But because of a pre-existing mindset about 'drugs', many people would simply put them in that classification automatically, without any consideration or information.

Though I am Buddhist, I am also a bit of a Transhumanist, and look forward to advances in technology that would expand our definition of humanity - or even consciousness itself. My two sincere wishes before I die are to see Humans on Mars, and Synthetic Intelligence.

Aha ! Space Cadet ! I knew it !

I guess one of the issues I find with drugs are that their beneficial effects are inherently transient. I would much rather make use of a more permanent option to increase mental acuity, whether it is in the form of silicon, or a piece of biotechnology.

If you woke up to a particular psychic feature of yourself, and this changed your behavior, it is no more or less transient than an experience of satori, or whatever you want to call the peak experiences which gradually modify a meditators mind.

Meditation is also a 'transient' mind-alteration, generally speaking.

Please note, that I believe that these options still exist in the distant future, and am at the present more prone to put my trust in my own mind, and always recommend that others do the same.

My mind is still my mind, even during a transient dopamine elevation or whatever.

But I agree with your first point. Many people simply don't have the kind of motivation, environment, or impulse control, required to get real value from altered states, and stay out of trouble.

And just for the record - the kinds of psychedelic compounds I am thinking of are not really an every day or even every year kind of thing. In my utopia, such compounds would be used in a manner very similar to doing a ten-day meditation retreat. Not necessarily something you do often.

A ten-day meditation retreat, for most meditators, is a very unusual, transient, mind-altering experience. But that's no reason not to do it, is it ? Apparently the effects can last ...

 

[maxfreakout]

What I would like to hear from you is why you want to make this an issue on a buddhist forum which is clearly almost exclusively anti-drugs.

as i explained in the OP, i had always assumed (based on my limited study of buddhist texts) that buddhism was not originally antidrugs oriented. Then i came cross this thread which includes some strong antidrugs sentiments under the banner of 'buddhism'. I was curious whether those antidrugs sentiments have anything to do with ancient buddhist tradition (i knew about the fifth precept rule about alcohol, but was unaware of any buddhist pronouncements on other drugs besides alcohol), so i posted this thread asking about it. And this thread has confirmed my suspicions, that ncient buddhism says nothing about drugs besides alcohol, so the idea that buddhism is antidrugs is merely a modern artificial projection which has nothing to do with actual buddhism (ie the thoughts, experiences and teachings of the Buddha)

But I don't see what you can achieve by having this one-sided 'debate'.

it isnt a 'debate', it is a question. It is a straightforward yes/no question whether Buddhist scripture prohibits drugs other than alcohol, there isnt much to debate about.

And really, leaving aside some of the details of Tibet and the use of psychedelics there in the past, Buddhism and drugs are not the same topic.

I am not claiming that 'Buddhism and drugs are the same topic', rather i am asking what was the attitude of the Buddha and Buddhist scripture on the subject of drugs.

You don't need the permission of traditional buddhists.

I dont know what you mean by 'you dont need the permission', im simply asking a straightforward question about Buddhist ethics, im not asking anyone's 'permission' for anything.

An important point here is that most mind-altering compounds (such as the example I just gave) have been isolated or synthesised since the time of Gautama. And also since Jesus, and Mohammed. Hundreds of psychedelic compounds have appeared in the last 30 years. So really, those many hundreds of compounds have never been 'assessed' by a major saint, prophet or holyman. There is simply no 'informed opinion' about them from that perspective.

This ^ strongly contradicts the illogical antidrugs sentiment that is expressed by several posters on this thread, that even modern synthetic drugs are prohibited by the fifth precept about distilled and fermented drinks

Personally, I think that if Gautama had witnessed the outcomes of using some of the new phenethylamines, he would likely have considered them a boon to humanity.

There would likely have been plant based drugs structurally analagous to the 'new phenethylamines' (or at least the new tryptamines) in the Buddha's environment.

Similarly, I think that if even the most conservative (even inimical) posters here knew personally precisely what some of these compounds do, they would acknowledge that drugs don't necessarily mean 'intoxication' and 'unwholesomeness'.

I agree, it seems modern buddhism is dominated by sheer cluelessness about the effects of "some of these compounds"

 

[maxfreakout]

You are set on labeling it "artificial" and maybe even as a revisionism of some kind

the phrase "fermented and distilled drinks that cause heedlessness" has recently been artificially revised to "all drugs, even those that are not distilled or fermented drinks"

You can't get much more artificial than that

 

[Breathe]

the phrase "fermented and distilled drinks that cause heedlessness" has recently been artificially revised to "all drugs, even those that are not distilled or fermented drinks"

You can't get much more artificial than that

Or... you're deciding that it ends at distilled drinks and "cause heedlessness" is an explanation for it, instead of it continuing like so: "Surā, meraya, majja, carelessness-causing [things] are prohibited; this precept I follow" and looking for a loophole to support your own theory, and when people disagree with it, saying it's somehow our mistake.

 

[LuisDantas]

A ten-day meditation retreat, for most meditators, is a very unusual, transient, mind-altering experience. But that's no reason not to do it, is it ? Apparently the effects can last ...

There is a crucial difference between experiencing a retreat, which means allowing your mind and body to react to your experience and adjust accordingly, and using psychoactive substances, which torpedoes the feedback between body and mind.

 

[LuisDantas]

the phrase "fermented and distilled drinks that cause heedlessness" has recently been artificially revised to "all drugs, even those that are not distilled or fermented drinks"

You can't get much more artificial than that

So either you don't understand or don't agree with the various, patient explanations of why that is not so that were given in this thread.

At this point I can only wonder why you even care what Buddhism says on the matter, at any time period and with any degree of orthodoxy. You have decided what you want already.

 

[apophenia]

it isnt a 'debate', it is a question. It is a straightforward yes/no question whether Buddhist scripture prohibits drugs other than alcohol, there isnt much to debate about.

I am not claiming that 'Buddhism and drugs are the same topic', rather i am asking what was the attitude of the Buddha and Buddhist scripture on the subject of drugs.

I dont know what you mean by 'you dont need the permission', im simply asking a straightforward question about Buddhist ethics, im not asking anyone's 'permission' for anything.

That's all fair enough. I was being a bit sloppy I suppose.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Max, I would make a suggestion to you: stop trying to take the Buddhist scriptures the way the Abrahamics take theirs. The Buddha has preached several sermons that describe the way the scriptures are to be taken, namely, in their spirit, not in the literal reading. It takes a complete knowledge of Buddhism in order to understand this. The Raft Sermon is one that comes to mind. Buddhism isn't about rigid adherence to a set of writings, but liberation of the mind through enlightenment to the true nature of reality. Take that as you will.

 

[Secret Chief]

Max, I would make a suggestion to you: stop trying to take the Buddhist scriptures the way the Abrahamics take theirs. The Buddha has preached several sermons that describe the way the scriptures are to be taken, namely, in their spirit, not in the literal reading. It takes a complete knowledge of Buddhism in order to understand this. The Raft Sermon is one that comes to mind. Buddhism isn't about rigid adherence to a set of writings, but liberation of the mind through enlightenment to the true nature of reality. Take that as you will.

Well put. At least that's my view each time I drink a beer.

 

[SageTree]

Major Props to dyanaprajna for the same quote as Magog used.


Although rigidity happens irregardless of the tradition.
Like rigidly asserting non-rigidity

 

[apophenia]

Drugs are discouraged not only because of the risk of further attachment, but because depending upon a substance for "wisdom" is the opposite of what a pure and independent mind should be.

I was rereading the thread, and this post caught my eye.

It occurs to me that the phrase "depending upon a substance for "wisdom"" could stand some closer inspection.

There is an implicit generalisation there that any use of a psychoactive substance is associated with dependence on that drug as the only source of wisdom.

If I were to suggest that some compounds may enable or facilitate deep and lasting personal insight, that is NOT a statement which says the ONLY WAY to get personal insight is by using that compound.

Important differentiation.

 

[SageTree]

I understand what you are saying, but prompted a question:

There is an implicit generalisation there that any use of a psychoactive substance is associated with dependence on that drug as the only source of wisdom.

You would say that there is the possibility of lasting insight w/ said substance, though?
That is, after the effect of the drug wears off, there is still an affect that says with one?

 

[LuisDantas]

Wisdom is the skill of applying knowledge and understanding links of cause and effect.

Altered sensations are inherently inimical to that. They sabotage one's own self-knowledge.

I see not, and can not even conceive of any reason to believe that the "wisdom" supposedly granted by chemicals is any more real than the feeling of intelligence that most drunkards have while drunk.

Even if it did exist, it is simply not worth the risk.

 

[SageTree]

it is simply not worth the risk.

I think this is more where the basis of all this comes from more than anything.
Most people confuse the finger for the moon.

 

[crossfire]

as i explained in the OP, i had always assumed (based on my limited study of buddhist texts) that buddhism was not originally antidrugs oriented. Then i came cross this thread which includes some strong antidrugs sentiments under the banner of 'buddhism'. I was curious whether those antidrugs sentiments have anything to do with ancient buddhist tradition (i knew about the fifth precept rule about alcohol, but was unaware of any buddhist pronouncements on other drugs besides alcohol), so i posted this thread asking about it. And this thread has confirmed my suspicions, that ncient buddhism says nothing about drugs besides alcohol, so the idea that buddhism is antidrugs is merely a modern artificial projection which has nothing to do with actual buddhism (ie the thoughts, experiences and teachings of the Buddha)

Max, if you would like a copy of the English translation of the ancient Vinaya texts that specifically mention drugs, including hemp and the use of alcohol in medicines, you can download a pdf of the Mahavagga sections V-X and the Culavagga sections I-III here.
It is a scanned copy of a paper book, so you won't be able to do any automated searches. Section VI, the section on medications, begins on the pdf page #45, or the book page #41. The page where alcohol is allowed in the medications is on pdf page #59/book page #55, and the page where it specifically mentions marijuana is pdf page #61/book page #60. Throughout the chapter, the Buddha makes it clear that non-food medications were only to be used when the need arises, and are not to be used recreationally.

it isnt a 'debate', it is a question. It is a straightforward yes/no question whether Buddhist scripture prohibits drugs other than alcohol, there isnt much to debate about.

LOL! Ancient Buddhist scripture is NOT silent on the matter, as far as the rules for monks and nuns go.

I am not claiming that 'Buddhism and drugs are the same topic', rather i am asking what was the attitude of the Buddha and Buddhist scripture on the subject of drugs.

Buddha allowed drugs as needed. He disallowed the recreational use of drugs among the monks and nuns. It's quite straightforward, if you care to check it out.

This ^ strongly contradicts the illogical antidrugs sentiment that is expressed by several posters on this thread, that even modern synthetic drugs are prohibited by the fifth precept about distilled and fermented drinks

On the contrary, Buddha allowed alcohol in medications. He allowed all forms of needed medicines when the need arises. I reference the text and where you can read it for yourself in this post.

 

[maxfreakout]

If I were to suggest that some compounds may enable or facilitate deep and lasting personal insight, that is NOT a statement which says the ONLY WAY to get personal insight is by using that compound.

I think it's more relevant to talk in terms of altered states of consciousness, the compounds provide the only immediate and reliable means to access the altered states. That isnt an 'attachment' or an addiction, it is simply a statement about how human neurochemistry works.