Does Buddhism prohibit drugs?

[SageTree]

This thread seems about ready for the meatball plant.

It's a dead horse for sure.

Ouch!?

Tasteless or Tasty?

You decide.

 

[maxfreakout]

Because some believe you shouldn't consume things which alter your own state of consciousness artificially (even in "good" ways) but should rely only on yourself?

Some people might believe this, but there is no indication that the buddha did

 

[crossfire]

Hey, I learned a lot in this thread. Thanks, Max.

 

[ratikala]

considering the eight fold path and looking at the moral aspect ....sila

Wisdom (paññ&#257.
1. Right view (sammā-ditthi)
2. Right thought (sammā-sankappa)
Morality (sīla).
3. Right speech (sammā-vāc&#257
4. Right action (sammā-kammanta)
5. Right livelihood (sammā-ājīva)
Concentration (samādhi).
6. Right effort) (sammā-vāyāma)
7. Right mindfulness (sammā-sati)
8. Right concentration (sammā-samādhi)

and considering the five precepts ....
(random translation chosen)

I undertake the precept to abstain from the taking life.
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

I undertake the precept not to take that which is not freely given.
Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

I undertake the precept to abstain from misconduct .
Kāmesu micchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

I undertake the precept to abstain from false speech.
Musāvāda veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

I undertake the precept to abstain from liquor that cause intoxication and indolence.
Surā-meraya-majja-pamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

allthough these may be translated variously , indolence , intoxication , heedlessness , ....etc there is no getting away from the fact that altered conciousness is just that 'Altered conciousness' not mindfullness to me the entire buddhist path is about the dicipline of mindfullness .


above all Right Speech means the discipline speech in accordance with the truth (dharma),
there for it is truethfullness devoid of falsehood , slander , malicious and idle talk .

Right Action is in accordance with the five precepts , that one should conduct one self in a manner that is respectfull and non harmfull in any way to any other (including the self) .

Right Livelihood is ones pledge to engage in correct conduct in all dealings , that which ever way we choose to support our selves and our families should equaly be free from falsehood and any harm to any other ,

therefore the true question of drug use should be concidered with these two points in mind ,

can one truthfully say that there is no loss of mindfullness ?

can one truthfully say that there is no harm to any other being ? (no loss of responcibility)?

 

[apophenia]

Last word - all you buddhists drinking tea and coffee - you should be ashamed of yourselves !

And all those Tibetan lamas - aberrations !

And Alan Watts - totally bogus, bringing shame on zen !

:yes:

Now straighten up and fly right, and remember - it isn't how you behave or how mindful you are that counts, it's whether or not you followed the rules !

 

[Breathe]

Some people might believe this, but there is no indication that the buddha did

It makes more sense that he did than that he didn't. If you don't want to follow it, don't - but you aren't really winning anyone over with your line of reasoning.

 

[apophenia]

No chamomile tea either by the way. It's a relaxant. In fact, most herbal teas contain psychoactive substances, so from now on, do the Ned Flanders and stick to water. And if warm milk before bedtime relaxes you, that's the tryptophan working, so give it up.

 

[apophenia]

If you have a headache, put up with it. The painkillers are not kosher - you could easily put up with the pain, the painkillers are really just for mental and emotional comfort. And if you go to the hospital for surgery, show some balls and just say no the anaesthesia - that must be the worst drug for buddhists, because it totally removes mindfulness. When the doctor is cutting you, just meditate on anicca. If the shock kills you, well, that's just yatham bhutam, the way it is, so go with it.

 

[ratikala]

No chamomile tea either by the way. It's a relaxant. In fact, most herbal teas contain psychoactive substances, so from now on, do the Ned Flanders and stick to water. And if warm milk before bedtime relaxes you, that's the tryptophan working, so give it up.

ever heard the expression "not too much not too little "

in the bhagavad gita it is "not elated not depressed "

either way it is "the middle way" :namaste

 

[apophenia]

ever heard the expression "not too much not too little "

That's been my point the whole way Ratikala.

I mentioned examples of cognitive enhancers less toxic than tea, and there was objection on principle.

So when that principle is applied a little further outside the comfort zone - we get the 'everything in moderation' response. So now, you are agreeing with me.

 

[DreadFish]

Well, I read some posts that I wanted to reply to, then I realized that they were three pages back from this page. So im not going to directly reply to them.

All in all, its not that the substance grants you the insight, and I dont think anyone has explicitly suggested that. If someone has, I disagree. The matter is that, there are certain understandings that can be gained from seeing reality from a different point of view.

I think we can all agree, from our dharmic paradigms, that our perspectives are illusory. In sobriety, a moderately full stomach and 10 hours of sleep, our mind is strong, our ideas are fixed and things are stable. Even sleeping less every night or staying up late one night can start to loosen fixed parameters.

So, the point I mean to make, and I think others are trying to make this point too, is that altered perspectives can be very valuable in understanding our experience. When things are foreign, even just slightly so, with the right attentiveness, we can gain insight to the way things work.

So, obviously, it is not the substance which grants the insight, it is in how one responds to the altered perception they experience. Just like how a notable life experience shifts our perspective or makes us realize something. Familiarity and sameness can put one in a conceptual rut, of sorts, where things seem much more concrete and substantial than they are.

I also must mention, the Jnana states: altered perception. They are trance states. Using external circumstances to induce these states is like using training wheels. You'll never grow up if you are hooked on your training wheels, but they can help you learn how your bike works and how to ride it.

 

[DreadFish]

Also, zen monks use green tea. That's caffeine, a stimulant and cognitive function enhancer. Though actually caffeine isn't a stimulant in the usual sense. Caffeine prevents your brain from uptaking certain chemicals, which is naturally produces, that make you tired; that's why it effects different people differently. The caffeine itself does not stimulate you.

 

[ratikala]

dear apophenia ,

That's been my point the whole way Ratikala.

what ? .... that there is such a thing as moderation

that there is such a thing as rational use
yes of course there are times in our lives where we might need to recourse to drug use for medicinal reasons , this is rational .

but drug use for recreational use is not rational to a strict buddhist practitioner , who very often does not take cafine or foods that have detrimental efects on the bodys natural ballance .

as far as the idea of cognitive enhancers each must make up his own mind as to whether or not they are nececary .
my arguement would simply be one of the lasting efects and the possibility that some substances cause lasting harm , so it realy depends on what type of drug we are talking about ? even excessive caffine consumption has nasty side effects .

I mentioned examples of cognitive enhancers less toxic than tea, and there was objection on principle.

there is a tendancy in conversations like this to split hairs in order to justify ones veiw ,
the op asks did buddha prohibit drug use ?
so then we need to clarify what the op means by drugs ?
I am assuming he was refering to what we term recreational drug use , not nececicarily compounds found in small quantities in food stuffs , but about compounds found in larger quantities which as you say have notable effects and are deliberately taken for their ability to alter the conciousness .

So when that principle is applied a little further outside the comfort zone - we get the 'everything in moderation' response. So now, you are agreeing with me.

as far as I see it it is not a matter of comfort zones , but a matter of whether the use of such compounds are capable of causing long damage to oneself or to others , if this is so then it is wrong action .

buddha taught clearly on what is skillfull what is un skillfull , ... it is for us to examine and apply reasoning .

I am not agreeing or dissagreeing simply examining what lay within reason .

and reitterate my previous points for concideration , ....

therefore the true question of drug use should be concidered with these two points in mind ,

can one truthfully say that there is no loss of mindfullness ?

can one truthfully say that there is no harm to any other being ? (no loss of responcibility)?

 

[maxfreakout]

There are a number of unexamined/unconscious assumptions that are rife throughout this thread, such as the following:

- all drugs cause heedlessness and harm
- buddha's mention of alcohol in the fifth precept can be legitimately extended to all drugs
- all non medical use of drugs is 'recreational' (so there could be no mindful/spiritual use for example)

These assumptions are all highly questionable, yet most of the posters on this thread employ them entirely uncritically in making their pronouncements about buddhism's position on drugs. This is not in the spirit of buddhism, which promotes critical, discriminating thinking as opposed to unquestioning adherence to dogma.

 

[ratikala]

dear max freakout ,

There are a number of unexamined/unconscious assumptions that are rife throughout this thread, such as the following:

- all drugs cause heedlessness and harm
- buddha's mention of alcohol in the fifth precept can be legitimately extended to all drugs
- all non medical use of drugs is 'recreational' (so there could be no mindful/spiritual use for example)

I am not nececarily assuming that you were addressing the above to myself alone , but on my part what I have said is a fully concious assertion ,

however I have not said that all drugs cause heedlesness , but have clearly said that we should consider the possible cause of heedlesness or harm to any other ,
the end descission lay with the practitioner , but that he should consider his/her actions carefully .

These assumptions are all highly questionable, yet most of the posters on this thread employ them entirely uncritically in making their pronouncements about buddhism's position on drugs. This is not in the spirit of buddhism, which promotes critical, discriminating thinking as opposed to unquestioning adherence to dogma.

and it is discriminating wisdom that we should use to determine whether drug use is harmfull or not , wherther it causes suffering to any other being and if it truely is an aid to mindfullness or whether it simply gives the temporary illusion of mindfullness ?

if it were the perfect aid to mindfullness why did buddha state so clearly that when training the mind a practitioner should regard dharma as medicine . if drug use were truely capable of hightening mindfullness would buddha not have said so ?
why did he clearly say "regard my self as the physician and dharma as the medicine "

in my most humble opinion , adhereance to the eight fold path is hardly adherance to dogma

 

[Murkve]

So much projection, so little awareness...

This is ridiculous.

I have examined my own experiences and the Dhamma, how they fit with each other, and come to the conclusion that I am uncomfortable with how many foreign substances affect my mind. This is not projection. This is interpretation and reflection.

You do not get to call me unaware because a conclusion I have reached differs from the one you have reached.

 

[Secret Chief]

This is ridiculous.

I have examined my own experiences and the Dhamma, how they fit with each other, and come to the conclusion that I am uncomfortable with how many foreign substances affect my mind. This is not projection. This is interpretation and reflection.

You do not get to call me unaware because a conclusion I have reached differs from the one you have reached.

Excellent point, well made.

 

[maxfreakout]

I have examined my own experiences and the Dhamma, how they fit with each other, and come to the conclusion that I am uncomfortable with how many foreign substances affect my mind. This is not projection. This is interpretation and reflection.
]

What you say here Δ is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, and to buddhism. I am not asking 'how foreign substances affect your mind', rather I asked what is the attitude of buddhism (the teachings of the buddha) to drugs. I wanted to know f there is any reference to a prohibition on drugs in buddhist scripture, other than alcohol which s prohibited (or at least warned against) by the fifth precept.

You do not get to call me unaware because a conclusion I have reached differs from the one you have reached.

I didn't, what I said was unaware is the baseless projection of modern antidrugs values onto traditional buddhism, and buddhist scripture

 

[Vinayaka]

The Dalai Lama speaks on it here.. [youtube]vnQr2AqVpIU[/youtube]
Dalai Lama Q&A(Nature of the Mind)- On Using Drugs & Alcohol - YouTube sorry if someone already posted this link.

 

[Murkve]

What you say here Δ is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, and to buddhism.

It is in fact not irrelevant to Buddhism. The exact opposite. The way in which we should come to our beliefs is by examination of personal experiences and reflection. This is supported in the Kalama Sutta, and myriad others. It is in fact the whole point of Buddhism.

I am not asking 'how foreign substances affect your mind', rather I asked what is the attitude of buddhism (the teachings of the buddha) to drugs. I wanted to know f there is any reference to a prohibition on drugs in buddhist scripture, other than alcohol which s prohibited (or at least warned against) by the fifth precept.

Gotama made it very clear that the Dhamma he discovered stands on its own. It is independent of time and place, has been uncovered countless times before and will continue to be uncovered for eons to come. However, the Dhamma is not identically equal to Buddhism. Buddhism is putting the Dhamma to practice, and for this reason is subject to interpretation.

You seem to think that Buddhism - the practice of the Dhamma - somehow stands independent of its people. Buddhism, as a cultural, philosophical, and spiritual practice depends on and is defined by the beliefs of the people that practice it. You are interpreting the scriptures and the Dhamma in a way that is incongruent with hundreds of millions of people, and yet you have the gall to label these persons' practice (as well as my own) as a "baseless projection of modern anti drugs values"?

I didn't, what I said was unaware is the baseless projection of modern antidrugs values onto traditional buddhism, and buddhist scripture

You continue to inquire about the attitude of "Traditional Buddhism" toward drugs, as if somehow being older meant being a superior version. The only Buddhism that matters is the kind you practice. As long as you put the Dhamma to work in your life, you are a Buddhist.

If you want to use drugs in your practice, I respect that. If you interpret the scriptures in this way to support your practice, I respect that.

But what you must understand is that I, along with millions of other Buddhists, do not simply say "I do not wish to use drugs in my practice" as if we were automatons dictated by the cultures in which we live. Nor do we say that as if we were automatons dictated by the Pali Canon. We say that because we have examined our own lives and come to that conclusion.

You are free to do the same.