Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[dyanaprajna2011]

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.

If this were the case, and, as you say, the Buddha did not prohibit drug use, don't you think that he would have encouraged their usage, instead of meditation, which would take so much longer?

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

If you believe in that, than I guess you will use those drugs regardless of what anyone else says.

Let's just acknowledge that there is no evidence that the Buddha thought so, nor most Buddhists at any time period. If anything, all available evidence indicates that entheogenics have no legitimate place in Buddhism.

 

[apophenia]

Let's just acknowledge that there is no evidence that the Buddha thought so, nor most Buddhists at any time period. If anything, all available evidence indicates that entheogenics have no legitimate place in Buddhism.

Except in Tibetan buddhism. But since Tibet is now a Chinese cultural experiment, and Tibetan buddhism is now a product for conservative westerners to consume, that knowledge will disappear without a trace.

 

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by apophenia
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.

So why 'buddhism and drugs' in particular ? Why buddhism at all ?

It seems we have two different subjects here - buddhism and psychedelia. If you are of the opinion that tripping is crucial to your path, and you need to be in a like-minded community, join the Native American Church. Maybe go to university and get a degree in chemistry.

If you feel that buddhist practice and meditation does not give you access to the states you want access to, change yourself by all means, but you aren't about to convert the world's buddhists to the Fourth Way. You do get that, right ?

Trying to convert the buddhists on RF to psychedelic yoga just isn't going to fly.

 

[maxfreakout]

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

Thanks for posting up that source, very interesting but it seems to be just about medicines as opposed to psychoactive drugs, i see no mention of 'recreational use' did i miss something?

Also this only seems to be aimed at monks and nuns, what about the rules for ordinary buddhists?

 

[maxfreakout]

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.

Thanks for this, i am beginning to understand this about Buddhism, there is a great deal of "make it up as you go along" in modern buddhist prctise, such as the multiple instances of mistranslation of buddhist scriptures on this thread. The whim opinions of modern buddhists seem to matter far more than what the buddhist scriptures actually say

 

[LuisDantas]

Except in Tibetan buddhism. But since Tibet is now a Chinese cultural experiment, and Tibetan buddhism is now a product for conservative westerners to consume, that knowledge will disappear without a trace.

Honestly, I never heard of any evidence of any tolerance for drugs in Tibetan Buddhism at all until a few months ago. I file that under "aberration".

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for this, i am beginning to understand this about Buddhism, there is a great deal of "make it up as you go along" such as the multiple instances of mistranslation of buddhist scriptures on this thread. The whim opinions of modern buddhists seem to matter far more than buddhist scriptures

Not mistranslation at all, but rather taking responsibility for the correct interpretation of the text instead of seeking loopholes.

It is called "Dharma".

 

[apophenia]

Honestly, I never heard of any evidence of any tolerance for drugs in Tibetan Buddhism at all until a few months ago. I file that under "aberration".

So if there is evidence that your view may be unreasonably biased, you have a simple way to deal with such evidence. File it under aberration.

 

[crossfire]

Thanks for posting up that source, very interesting but it seems to be just about medicines as opposed to psychoactive drugs, i see no mention of 'recreational use' did i miss something?

Yes. You missed the parts in that section VI of Mahavagga I referenced, repeatedly saying, "I allow that, having accepted {insert type of medicine: root,eaf, fruit, salt, gum, etc}-medicine — i.e., {examples of type,} or whatever other {relevent medicine type} are medicines and do not serve, among non-staple food, the purpose of non-staple food; or, among staple food, the purpose of staple food — one may keep it for life and, when there is reason, consume it. If there is no reason, there is an offense of wrong doing for one who consumes it."

Alcohol is allowed in medicine if there is a need, but otherwise it is an offense. Any other medicine is allowed if there is a need, but it is an offense for monks and nuns to consume it if there is no need--i.e., recreational use is considered an offense.

 

[LuisDantas]

So if there is evidence that your view may be unreasonably biased, you have a simple way to deal with such evidence. File it under aberration.

I suppose that is true.

Of course, there is the matter of the actual early teachings. Then there is the inherent conflict betweeh entheogenics and the goal of training the mind. And the plain fact that the Tibetan school teachers that I met consistently disapprove of entheogenics.

So, who knows, maybe it is an aberration.

 

[crossfire]

Also this only seems to be aimed at monks and nuns, what about the rules for ordinary buddhists?

Yes, it is for monks and nuns, since it is the Vinaya--rules for monks and nuns.

See post #3 for Buddha's advice to laypersons.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, it is for monks and nuns, since it is the Vinaya--rules for monks and nuns.

See post #3 for Buddha's advice to laypersons.

Buddha's first word of his first sermon after enlightenment:

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
""There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."

The sutta I referenced in post #3 gives the reasoning why indulging the sensual pleasures through recreation drug us is unprofitable, and is therefore an extreme to be avoided. This path of discernment is what the Middle Way of Buddhism is all about. Indulging unprofitable sense-pleasures in incompatable with the Middle Way--it leads to dukkha.​

 

[maxfreakout]

Yes, it is for monks and nuns, since it is the Vinaya--rules for monks and nuns.

See post #3 for Buddha's advice to laypersons.

Since that advice specifically refers to "intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness"

presumably this means that intoxicants which don't cause infatuation and heedlessness are permitted?

 

[maxfreakout]

If there is no reason, there is an offense of wrong doing for one who consumes it."

This ^ says nothing of recreational use though, or use of drugs for any other reason

it is an offense for monks and nuns to consume it if there is no need--i.e., recreational use is considered an offense.

the second clause doesnt follow from the first, where does the text mention "recreational" use, or use for any other reason? Have you inserted the word "recreational" yourself (making up the rules according to your own opinions), or does the text actually mention recreational use, or use for any other reason besides curing physical ailments?

You seem to be artificially equating "using drugs for no reason" with "using drugs for reasons other than curing physical ailments" is that really justified by the wording of the original text?

 

[apophenia]

presumably this means that intoxicants which don't cause infatuation and heedlessness are permitted?

and what if a particular drug causes such heightened awareness that it becomes evident that 'normal consciousness' is primarily 'infatuation and heedlessness' ?

answer : you're on your own

 

[maxfreakout]

there is the inherent conflict betweeh entheogenics and the goal of training the mind.

What inherent conflict? Using drugs which produce extreme altered states of consciousness could be seen as a very effective way of training the mind (like sending your mind to the gym), this is why the use of such drugs is associated with shamanic training in tribal cultures.

And the plain fact that the Tibetan school teachers that I met consistently disapprove of entheogenics.

But this is only from the modern era, which is thoroughly anti-drugs obsessed. Those Tibetan teachers did not receive their antidrugs views from the ancient teachings which they claim to follow

 

[Murkve]

Methinks that if one needs to see the wheel of Samsara in action, they need only be directed to observe the "debate" in this thread.

 

[maxfreakout]

and what if a particular drug causes such heightened awareness that it becomes evident that 'normal consciousness' is primarily 'infatuation and heedlessness' ?

answer : you're on your own

This ^ is exactly why i suspect that the original Buddhist teachings were probably entheogen-inspired: because the altered state of consciousness demonstrates the mind's "attachment" to the egoic configuration in the ordinary state of consciousness. Maybe the 'Bodhi tree' symbolises entheogenic plants?

 

[crossfire]

Methinks that if one needs to see the wheel of Samsara in action, they need only be directed to observe the "debate" in this thread.

LOL! Frubal!