How your religion views drugs/alcohol?

[biased]

How does your religion view drugs? Both in spiritual, recreational (social) and destructive (addiction) contexts?

 

[LuisDantas]

Drugs are by definition destructive, and people don't come much more opposed to them than me.

As for "standard" Buddhism, the core five rules of discipline (Sila) that apply to everyone (not just Monks) state in no unclear terms that intoxication should be avoided.

 

[biased]

Drugs are by definition destructive, and people don't come much more opposed to them than me.

As for "standard" Buddhism, the core five rules of discipline (Sila) state in no unclear terms that intoxication should be avoided.

Whose definition is that? I thought language was dynamic, not set in stone and thus not able to be defined as it is strictly in empiricism which it looks like you are defining it by.

Have you seen Zig Zag Zen by Alex Grey? It deals with Psychedelics and Buddhism. I'm curious if you've read it.

Why is intoxication avoided? What if I feel One with the universe when I take a hit of ganja?

 

[metis]

There's a distinction between intoxication and just having a small drink, and there are many Buddhists that are not monks who will occasionally partake.

 

[Riverwolf]

Drugs and alcohol don't actually go hand in hand any more than drugs and cane sugar do.

Asatru has no position on drugs, since back in ye olde days, drugs were pretty much the only source of medicine.

Alcohol, especially Mead, on the other hand, is sacred (though wanton drunkenness is inappropriate in pretty much all situations.)

 

[biased]

There's a distinction between intoxication and just having a small drink, and there are many Buddhists that are not monks who will occasionally partake.

I consider that distinction the distinction between use and abuse. It is an incredibly fine line to walk burdened with huge amounts of self-control and responsibility most are unprepared to handle when dealing with some of the more addictive base substances (cocaine, meth, heroin)

 

[LuisDantas]

Whose definition is that? I thought language was dynamic, not set in stone and thus not able to be defined as it is strictly in empiricism which it looks like you are defining it by.

Mine. I would never call anything a drug if I did not see it as destructive. It would be medicine or perhaps food instead.

Do you know of a better definition? I would like to learn of it.

Have you seen Zig Zag Zen by Alex Grey? It deals with Psychedelics and Buddhism. I'm curious if you've read it.

Nope. The first I ever hear of it.

Let me consult the Google Oracle...

This page does address the issue with some depth and far more detail than I would care to.

Buddhism and Psychedelics - Zig Zag Zen

For me personally it is a trivial, well-resolved matter for which I have little patience.

Why is intoxication avoided?

Because it upsets one of the first and core goals of Buddhist practice, which is attaining the best possible harmony between one's mental states and one's actual experiences in the world.

What if I feel One with the universe when I take a hit of ganja?

Then you are poisoning yourself and enjoying it, I guess.

The problem as I see it is that ingesting drugs is by definition divorcing what you feel from what you should feel, from what your experiences and your brain reactions and mental training would allow you to feel. It is by definition unreliable and leads to alienation.

Taking your example, whatever feeling you get from the weed will not be calibrated by your normal mental proccesses (if it were, the weed would not play a role). So what is left to you? Resort to more weed to get the feeling again?

At best, that is a distraction that will make it that much more difficult to attain proper mental states with your own brain and practice. And make no mistake, there are very real dangers involved. It may not be as dangerous as alcohol, but that means little.

 

[biased]

Mine.

So completely arbitrary.

Do you know of a better definition? I would like to learn of it.

Learn the subtle differences between use and abuse.




Nope. The first I ever hear of it.

Let me consult the Google Oracle...

This page does address the issue with some depth and far more detail than I would care to.

Buddhism and Psychedelics - Zig Zag Zen

For me personally it is a trivial, well-resolved matter for which I have little patience.

Because it upsets one of the first and core goals of Buddhist practice, which is attaining the best possible harmony between one's mental states and one's actual experiences in the world.

What if my individual biochemistry is so whacked that the only way I can be in the tao so to speak is while intoxicated on cannabis?

Then you are poisoning yourself and enjoying it, I guess.

Cannabis has been shown study after study, peer reviewed consecutively in EVERY single journal to be NOT neurotoxic, NOT cardiotoxic, NOT hepatoxic. Taken orally and with someone who isn't predisposed to mental disorders (family history, etc.) I find a hard reason to not recommend cannabis though obviously I don't encourage drug use. It's a responsible decision up to an adult to make. **** legality.

 

[Ablaze]

Canonical Buddhism rejects the use of drugs and alcohol via the five precepts (pañca sila) - the bare minimum of discipline expected of lay and ordained Buddhists alike - as well as through the countless recommendations against using drugs and alcohol as found in the Sutta and Vinaya Piṭakas (two of the three earliest baskets of the Pali Canon, acknowledged by all Buddhist schools as the first recorded teachings of the Buddha).

The fifth precept, accepted by all legitimate schools of Buddhism, advises:

Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

This means not simply to avoid intoxication, but to avoid substances ("drinks and drugs") that are the cause for intoxication. This is further explained in the Sutta and Vinaya Piṭakas, which reject drugs/alcohol on all occasions, on principle. These texts in particular explain how intoxicating substances are an obstacle to awakening.

Of course, plenty of modern practitioners often forgo study of the traditional texts or reinterpret them to their liking, usually favoring the teachings of modern teachers who do not adhere strictly to the earliest advice of the Buddha and present a more lax view of discipline.

I, however, am not one to impose New Age re-interpretations on traditional texts, especially when those traditional texts take a rational approach to their advice, that advice can be put into practice, and real progress can be actualized by following that advice.

 

[LuisDantas]

So completely arbitrary.

I guess it is.

So is the decision to use drugs, though, unless I am missing something.

Learn the subtle differences between use and abuse.

Not interested, but thanks anyway.

To learn a subtle difference is to purposely expose oneself to a significant risk of crossing it. I have no reason to consider that.

(...)

What if my individual biochemistry is so whacked that the only way I can be in the tao so to speak is while intoxicated on cannabis?

Then I would advise you to seek good detox help with responsible supervision. I plainly do not believe that there is any upside in anything else.

Cannabis has been shown study after study, peer reviewed consecutively in EVERY single journal to be NOT neurotoxic, NOT cardiotoxic, NOT hepatoxic.

It has been consistently witnessed by plenty of users to be psychoactive, and that settles the matter far as I am concerned.

Although I wonder about the neurotoxic part. I have seen people badly mangled by cannabis, although I suppose I can't swear that it is the cause.

Taken orally and with someone who isn't predisposed to mental disorders (family history, etc.)

And why should anyone run that risk in the first place anyway?

Also, what exactly does that predisposition mean? Is it even detectable before the fact?

I hear of it so often in much those exact words that I can't help but wonder if it is not just a spin of "yes, it is dangerous, but I want to blame it to a genetic predisposition instead of to willingness to run unnecessary risks".

I find a hard reason to not recommend cannabis though obviously I don't encourage drug use. It's a responsible decision up to an adult to make. **** legality.

And why would the decision ever not be to simply avoid it? I just don't see a reason.

 

[metis]

Canonical Buddhism rejects the use of drugs and alcohol via the five precepts (pañca sila) - the bare minimum of discipline expected of lay and ordained Buddhists alike - as well as through the countless recommendations against using drugs and alcohol as found in the Sutta and Vinaya Piṭakas (two of the three earliest baskets of the Pali Canon, acknowledged by all Buddhist schools as the first recorded teachings of the Buddha).

The fifth precept, accepted by all legitimate schools of Buddhism, advises:



This means not simply to avoid intoxication, but to avoid substances ("drinks and drugs") that are the cause for intoxication. This is further explained in the Sutta and Vinaya Piṭakas, which reject drugs/alcohol on all occasions, on principle. These texts in particular explain how intoxicating substances are an obstacle to awakening.

Of course, plenty of modern practitioners often forgo study of the traditional texts or reinterpret them to their liking, usually favoring the teachings of modern teachers who do not adhere strictly to the earliest advice of the Buddha and present a more lax view of discipline.

I, however, am not one to impose New Age re-interpretations on traditional texts, especially when those traditional texts take a rational approach to their advice, that advice can be put into practice, and real progress can be actualized by following that advice.

Good post, but I wouldn't go as far as to call a slight divergence "New Age". Even though it's definitely found in dharma, we have to remember that these are not absolutes, so there is room for at least some dissent.

Alcohol affects different people differently, and there is some medical evidence that suggest alcohol taken in moderate amounts can be beneficial. However, I agree that, ideally, most might best avoid it, but limiting it is the next best option, imo.

 

[Ablaze]

Good post, but I wouldn't go as far as to call a slight divergence "New Age". Even though it's definitely found in dharma, we have to remember that these are not absolutes, so there is room for at least some dissent.

Alcohol affects different people differently, and there is some medical evidence that suggest alcohol taken in moderate amounts can be beneficial. However, I agree that, ideally, most might best avoid it, but limiting it is the next best option, imo.

My use of the term "New Age" is only in reference to what I've observed among those who consider themselves Buddhist yet indulge hedonistically in psychedelics. This is fairly common in Western Buddhism among 20-somethings. Yet as a 20-something Western Buddhist, personally, I've never had as much as even a sip of alcohol, nor have I ever experimented with drugs (and I have no plans to do either in my life). That is simply my choice, just as it is the choice of those who partake to do as they wish.

My point, though, is that drug use and alcohol consumption is not supported by canonical Buddhism (which in fact, rejects it). Certain teachers with their idiosyncratic interpretations over the course of the past two and a half millenia may not have outright rejected drug use and alcohol consumption from an absolutist perspective, but such paths are most certainly not supported.

 

[chinu]

How does your religion view drugs? Both in spiritual, recreational (social) and destructive (addiction) contexts?

IMO, or according to my sect, Drugs/alcohol are just an medicines made for sick people, healthy people need not to take them. There's nothing bad in taking drugs/alcohol when one is sick. But, beware! sick people can never touch the high realms of spirituality. Thus.. one should try to get rid of these pain-killers as soon as possible, or one should not make these pain-killers, part of their daily diet

 

[Father Heathen]

Drugs are by definition destructive, and people don't come much more opposed to them than me.

by definition? Incorrect. Here is the proper definition:

drug1 [druhg] Show IPA
noun
1.
Pharmacology . a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.
2.
a.
any substance recognized in the official pharmacopoeia or formulary of the nation.
b.
any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals.
c.
any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.
d.
any substance intended for use as a component of such a drug, but not a device or a part of a device.
3.
a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.
4.
drugs.
a.
chemical substances prepared and sold as pharmaceutical items, either by prescription or over the counter.
b.
personal hygienic items sold in a drugstore, as toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.

Being informed and factual is important.

 

[Ablaze]

Depends on the type of drug. Based on Luis's post, I thought it was fairly obvious he was referring to addictive narcotics such as the Schedule 1 (Class 1) drugs, which have no medical use and are known for their high abuse potential and as safety hazards, including cocaine and heroin, among others. This tends to be the most common meaning of the colloquially used term "drug," at least in my experience studying neuropharmacology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Precisely. Who talks about, say, aspirin as a drug?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In Satanism, you can do whatever you want to or with your body. It's up to you as it's your responsibility. I myself enjoy getting nice and smashed at times and other substances certainly aren't out of the question.

 

[Ablaze]

Precisely. Who talks about, say, aspirin as a drug?

It's an important distinction, at least within Buddhism. The Buddha allowed the use of medicinal drugs as a means of curing disease (interestingly, the Buddha proclaimed himself to be the greatest of all physicians, with the Dhamma as the greatest of medicines), but disapproved of recreational drugs that cloud the mind and obstruct the path toward liberation.

 

[Father Heathen]

Then you are poisoning yourself and enjoying it, I guess.

The same way that you poison yourself with sugar, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, caffeine, etc? As with all things, it's called responsible moderation.

 

[Father Heathen]

Precisely. Who talks about, say, aspirin as a drug?

Doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals. At least the ones interested in keeping accurate terminology.