Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Translation: "I cannot approach the subject from an honest, objective, rational standpoint due to my own emotional insecurities and hang-ups."
How many doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals are participating in this discussion, though? I believe the OP asked about the perspective of religion.
I have NO use for your uncalled-for offense, mind you.
If you do not want to respect what I say, keep silent.
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.
For clarification, I did not think you were disagreeing with me, nor do I care whether or not you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with me. As I stated in my post, I was speaking from my perspective as a Buddhist who takes the canonical texts quite seriously, just as you are speaking from your perspective. These are not in opposition to each other. Again, to clarify, I saw nothing disagreeable about your post. I am simply expressing the traditional Buddhist perspective on the matter.
Actually, this one time I decided to report your post. See you later.
As an atheist, I get wasted as often as possible - preferably to the point of blacking out. After all, how else could I face the bottomless despair and anguish of realizing our lives are short, painful, and meaningless?
What if those 'new age' interpretation are pragmatic or psychologically more helpful than the orthodox interpretation? Are all non orthodox interpretations new age fluff? Buddha says test everything, this is no different. Jesus speaks against this too of the tradition of Elders.ABlaze said: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.
Precisely. Who talks about, say, aspirin as a drug?
What if those 'new age' interpretation are pragmatic or psychologically more helpful than the orthodox interpretation? Are all non orthodox interpretations new age fluff? Buddha says test everything, this is no different. Jesus speaks against this too of the tradition of Elders.
Alaṃ hi vo kālāmā kaṅkhituṃ alaṃ vicikicchituṃ, kaṅkhanīye ca pana vo ṭhāne vicikicchā uppannā, etha tumhe kālāmā mā anusasavena, mā paramparāya, mā itikirāya, mā piṭakasampadānena, mā takkahetu, mā nayahetu, mā ākāraparivitakkena, mā diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā, mā bhabbarūpatāya, mā samaṇo no garū'ti. Yadā tumhe kālāmā attanā'va jāneyyātha: ime dhammā akusalā, ime dhammā sāvajjā, ime dhammā viññūgarahitā, ime dhammā samattā samādinnā ahitāya dukkhāya saṃvattantī'ti: atha tumhe kālāmā pajaheyyātha.
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' then you should abandon them.
Kalama Sutta
How does your religion view drugs? Both in spiritual, recreational (social) and destructive (addiction) contexts?
According to Buddhist standards, use of intoxicants is not more pragmatic or psychologically more helpful, any moreso than killing, stealing, lying, or sexual misconduct are more pragmatic or psychologically more helpful. If you see it differently, so be it, but that perspective is not supported in Buddhism. Furthermore, I don't recall anyone saying that all non-orthodox interpretations are New Age, and I believe you are the first to introduce the term "fluff" to the conversation. Based on the Buddhist teachings, craving, clinging, and indulgence in the sensual pleasures are to be overcome, at least from the point of view of practicing Buddhists.
Lastly, the Buddha's words were actually:
Siddhartha Gautama said:“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”