Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[crossfire]

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


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?

Yes, use other than curing ailments is what is intended.
Compare definition of "recreational"

rec·re·a·tion·al
/ˌrekrēˈāSHənl/

Adjective

• Relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working: "recreational facilities".
• Relating to or denoting drugs taken on an occasional basis for enjoyment, esp. when socializing: "recreational drug use".

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?

Yes, that is what is meant in the texts. Please feel free to check the Pali yourself.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Believe that if you will, against my best advice. I don't, nor does any Buddhist canon or school support such a stance either.

But this is only from the modern era, which is thoroughly anti-drugs obsessed.

I happen to have the exact opposite perception; it is the traditional view, and only the indulgent ways that became popular from the 1960s on motivate some people to want to believe otherwise.

Those Tibetan teachers did not receive their antidrugs views from the ancient teachings which they claim to follow

Again, believe that if you will, but the evidence tells something else entirely.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Max, since you may have missed it, I'll direct you to a question I asked here.

 

[maxfreakout]

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?

i dont understand this question, what do you mean 'longer', longer than what? And why would Buddha encourage drug use?

 

[maxfreakout]

Please feel free to check the Pali yourself.

i just checked the original Pali version of the sigalovada sutta, and discovered that what your earlier link (mis)translates as 'intoxicants' is actually the Pali "[FONT=Times_CSX+]suràmerayamajja[/FONT]" which translates as "distilled and fermented drinks that cause heedlessness"

So here again there is a clear example of modern antidrugs projection being incorporated into an English translation of an ancient buddhist scripture. The original Pali sigalovada sutta does not mention any "intoxicants" except alcoholic drinks that "cause heedlessness", contrary to the English translation you linked to earlier.

 

[crossfire]

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

Actually, you are not on your own if you don't want to be: you still have the guidelines from the Kalama Sutta available to you to check whether you are still in makyo or not: absence of greed, hate and delusion, the presence of the four sublime states/brahmavihara: metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha. In other words, if you don't feel compassion us muddled mortals, you might want to check yourself for delusion, greed, or hatred.

 

[crossfire]

i just checked the original Pali version of the sigalovada sutta, and discovered that what your earlier link (mis)translates as 'intoxicants' is actually the Pali "[FONT=Times_CSX+]suràmerayamajja[/FONT]" which translates as "distilled and fermented drinks that cause heedlessness"

So here again there is a clear example of modern antidrugs projection being incorporated into an English translation of an ancient buddhist scripture. The original Pali sigalovada sutta does not mention any "intoxicants" except alcoholic drinks that "cause heedlessness", contrary to the English translation you linked to earlier.

Indeed, here is the Pali Text Society's translation of "majja:"

Majja

Majja (nt.) [fr. mad, cp. Vedic mada & madya] 1. intoxicant, intoxicating drink, wine, spirits Vin i.205; D iii.62, 63; Sn 398 (+pāna=majjapāna); VvA 73 (=surā ca merayañ ca); Sdhp 267. -- 2. drinking place J iv.223 (=pān' āgāra).
-- pa one who drinks strong drink, a drunkard A iv.261; Sn 400; Pv iv.176 (a˚ ThA 38. -- pāna drinking of intoxicating liquors Vv 158; VvA 73; Sdhp 87. -- pāyaka=majjapa J ii.192 (a&#730. -- pāyin=˚pāyaka Sdhp 88. -- vikkaya sale of spirits J iv.115.
​

This is the translation of surāmeraya:

Meraya

Meraya (nt.) [Epic Sk. maireya, cp. Hal&#257;yudha 2, 175 (Aufrecht p. 314); prob. dial.] a sort of intoxicating liquor, spirits, rum, usually combd with sur&#257;. D i.146<-> 166; M i.238; Pug 55; Dh 247; J iv.117 (pupph&#257;sav -- &#257;di, i. e. made fr. flowers, cp. defn dh&#257;tak&#299; -- pu&#7779;pagu&#7693;a -- dh&#257;ny -- &#257;mla -- sansk&#7771;ta&#331; by M&#257;dhava, Hal&#257;y. p. 314). Five kinds are given by Dhp&#257;la at VvA 73, viz. pupph -- &#257;sava, phal' &#257;sava, madhv&#730;, gu&#7735;&#730;, sambh&#257;rasa&#331;yutta.
​

The majja is intoxicants, the sur&#257;meraya is intoxicating liquor.

 

[maxfreakout]

Majja

Majja (nt.) [fr. mad, cp. Vedic mada & madya] 1. intoxicant, intoxicating drink, wine, spirits Vin i.205; D iii.62, 63; Sn 398 (+p&#257;na=majjap&#257;na); VvA 73 (=sur&#257; ca merayañ ca); Sdhp 267. -- 2. drinking place J iv.223 (=p&#257;n' &#257;g&#257;ra).
-- pa one who drinks strong drink, a drunkard A iv.261; Sn 400; Pv iv.176 (a&#730; ThA 38. -- p&#257;na drinking of intoxicating liquors Vv 158; VvA 73; Sdhp 87. -- p&#257;yaka=majjapa J ii.192 (a&#730. -- p&#257;yin=&#730;p&#257;yaka Sdhp 88. -- vikkaya sale of spirits J iv.115.​

​

This ^ definition cleary specifies that it is a drink "wine or spirits"


​

 

[crossfire]

[/indent]

This ^ definition cleary specifies that it is a drink "wine or spirits"​

...and this evil alcohol was allowed as an ingredient in medicines when the need arose!
(Along with bang/hemp being specifically mentioned as allowable for medicinal use when there was a need for it, but its use being disallowed otherwise.) See where I'm going with this?

 

[LuisDantas]

i dont understand this question, what do you mean 'longer', longer than what?

Longer than undrugged practice.

And why would Buddha encourage drug use?

Why wouldn't he, if your perspective were correct?

That you acknowledge that he would not surprises me slightly.

Are you assuming that it is important to follow the letter of the Canon instead of attempting to truly understand it?

 

[Breathe]

Is there any reason to think that the allowance of narcotics makes sense if alcohol is prohibited?

I mean: alcohol; something which was, for the longest of times, far, far safer to consume than water. These are prohibited according to the Fifth Noble Precept, because they can cause heedlessness - but narcotics wouldn't be? That just doesn't make sense.

 

[maxfreakout]

Is there any reason to think that the allowance of narcotics makes sense if alcohol is prohibited?

It seems to have made sense to the Buddha, although he apparently didnt offer an explicit justification.

 

[Breathe]

It seems to have made sense to the Buddha, although he apparently didnt offer an explicit justification.

We can't say that is the case, since Buddha has long since departed.

Yet, if several things are prohibited because they cause heedlessness, then why would it not be the case for narcotic substances?

 

[maxfreakout]

We can't say that is the case, since Buddha has long since departed.

Yet, if several things are prohibited because they cause heedlessness, then why would it not be the case for narcotic substances?

We still have the Buddhist scriptures, which specifically mention alcohol, but do not mention any 'narcotics', or any other drugs. But we dont know why this is, because the scriptures do not make any explicit justification.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't the avoidance of heedlessness justification enough?

 

[maxfreakout]

Isn't the avoidance of heedlessness justification enough?

the idea of 'heedlessness' is used in reference to alcohol, but it would be artificial projection and drastic oversimplicfication to claim that every other drug causes heedlessness.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not every other drug. Only those with psychoactive effects.

 

[crossfire]

We still have the Buddhist scriptures, which specifically mention alcohol, but do not mention any 'narcotics', or any other drugs. But we dont know why this is, because the scriptures do not make any explicit justification.

Max, I have presented texts that list specific narcotics, but you keep insisting that these texts do not exist. tsk tsk.

 

[crossfire]

the idea of 'heedlessness' is used in reference to alcohol, but it would be artificial projection and drastic oversimplicfication to claim that every other drug causes heedlessness.

Actually the mental effluents (asavas) cause heedlessness and lack of discernment without drugs weakening the mind. It is not just in relation to alcohol.

 

[Musty]

Since I started meditation I've largely avoided drugs (Including caffeine) because it affects my mind negatively. I'm still partial to the odd glass of wine (Low alcohol) but only get drunk very occasionally.