How your religion views drugs/alcohol?

[Ablaze]

When I was thinking of what Buddha was saying I had this quote in mind,


Thanks for the response, I appreciate an honest response. I'm no Buddhist just Buddhist sympathies. Our views on the use of intoxicants in spiritual contexts is at too much variance for me to be considered anything more than a heretical blasphemer in the Buddhist context. If such a thing were to exist. Heretic is just a generic word for me not necessarily Christian.

also FWIW I think killing, sex, stealing and lying can all be spiritual. I'll start a thread on it later on to stimulate discussion.

Indeed, that is a common mistranslation of the quote I included above.

Many thanks for your willingness to engage in this conversation.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

It is more rational to refrain from cultivating artificial desires. Drugs tend to trap many of us on a hedonic treadmill, adapting to stimulus and creating a false sense of default consciousness. It is possible to use certain intoxicating substances more responsibily, with more refined pleasure, by suspending stimulus, tempering desire, and increasing novelty whenever overindulgence becomes a threat, as long as there's a clear line between ocassional luxury and compulsatory necessity. I still struggle to find that balance and strongly suspect it is better not to feed the desire to begin with.

 

[metis]

Of course, others are free to disagree with the Buddhist perspective.

I have trouble with the "the Buddhist perspective", if one takes that literally. Buddhists can be all over the map on so many different issues, thus the different rafts, for example. In Buddhist circles, I've even see the issue as to what nirvana may or may not be or even if it's that important to believe in it. And probably most western Buddhists would hardly recognize the approaches taken by eastern Buddhists in various areas.

 

[Ablaze]

People who call themselves Buddhists can be all over the map, but I have been specifically referring to canonical Buddhism, not the hedonistic lifestyle that masquerades as Buddhism in some areas.

 

[Whiterain]

They were deviced by God for recreation or spiritual practices. Beer, Wine ect- Were devices by the Gods
as well as drugs that came from nature, shrooms and hashish. Although I do not recall the drug
use being mentioned perse, shrooms were used in numerous cultures.

I watched a beer documentary and it didn't mention anything about it's mythological history and
made up an entire theory based on it's discovery being a complete coincidence,

I abide by the law but it seems wrong not to indulge in the power of the mind through recreational drug use.

Other than that it is healthy to practice moderation.

 

[Ablaze]

I have trouble with the "the Buddhist perspective", if one takes that literally. Buddhists can be all over the map on so many different issues, thus the different rafts, for example. In Buddhist circles, I've even see the issue as to what nirvana may or may not be or even if it's that important to believe in it. And probably most western Buddhists would hardly recognize the approaches taken by eastern Buddhists in various areas.

Needless to say, when Buddhism was first introduced to the Western world, it was most notably adopted by the Theosophists with their emphasis on mystical experiences and later by the hippie movement with their emphasis on drug-induced mystical experiences. These movements, however, are hybrid movements. Although they may draw inspiration from Buddhism, their endorsement of recreational drug use, even for spiritual purposes, is not supported by the Buddhism that traces its roots back to the historical Buddha.

Of course, people are free to invent their own syncretic paths, but often this means ignoring certain teachings that may not be fully compatible.

There are vast differences in interpretation depending on the various schools of Buddhism, but unifying threads to all schools tend to be the three refuges, the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the three marks, and the five precepts (of which the fifth is to refrain from intoxicating substances). Not everyone who calls themselves a Buddhist adheres to these, just as not every self-professed Christian refrains from stealing or adultery. It is considered a less than ideal practice to just ignore certain teachings that are inconvenient or deemed unnecessary by the individual.

Again, my point is that no Buddhist school actively encourages recreational alcohol and drug use, regardless of what individuals do with their personal lives.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Generally, Christianity is lenient with alcohol. Drink a few beers, it's okay to get buzzed but don't get stone drunk every night.

As for drugs we generally just obey the law of the land. There is nothing explicitly stated in the Bible about drugs.

 

[dawny0826]

In moderation. If it isn't pulling you away from your faith - moderation is the way to go.

Legality is important, though.

 

[metis]

People who call themselves Buddhists can be all over the map, but I have been specifically referring to canonical Buddhism, not the hedonistic lifestyle that masquerades as Buddhism in some areas.

I agree, however there are many Buddhists who actually object to being called Buddhists, but I'm just being a bit picky.

 

[Ablaze]

I agree, however there are many Buddhists who actually object to being called Buddhists, but I'm just being a bit picky.

I used to be one of them. Now I see things in terms of my signature:

 

[metis]

Needless to say, when Buddhism was first introduced to the Western world, it was most notably adopted by the Theosophists with their emphasis on mystical experiences and later by the hippie movement with their emphasis on drug-induced mystical experiences. These movements, however, are hybrid movements. Although they may draw inspiration from Buddhism, their endorsement of recreational drug use, even for spiritual purposes, is not supported by the Buddhism that traces its roots back to the historical Buddha.

Of course, people are free to invent their own syncretic paths, but often this means ignoring certain teachings that may not be fully compatible.

There are vast differences in interpretation depending on the various schools of Buddhism, but unifying threads to all schools tend to be the three refuges, the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the three marks, and the five precepts (of which the fifth is to refrain from intoxicating substances). Not everyone who calls themselves a Buddhist adheres to these, just as not every self-professed Christian refrains from stealing or adultery. It is considered a less than ideal practice to just ignore certain teachings that are inconvenient or deemed unnecessary by the individual.

Again, my point is that no Buddhist school actively encourages recreational alcohol and drug use, regardless of what individuals do with their personal lives.

Well said, and I agree. But we should always remember that dharma is not written in stone, and even the FNT and EP can and should be subject to trial.

Anyhow, I'm seemingly picking up that you think I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm actually not. All I'm doing is qualifying things a bit so as others don't get false impressions. My particular approach is more on the "philosophical" approaches found within dharma, which is just one reason why I don't call myself a "Buddhist", along with the fact that I'm a very skeptical person, as most of us in science tend to be.

 

[metis]

I used to be one of them. Now I see things in terms of my signature: Nonself-identified Buddhist, empty of inherent existence

The one I love to cite is: last night I had a dream I was a butterfly, but just
maybe I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm now a human.

Or how about this one: last night I had a dream I ate a giant marshmallow, and when I woke up in the morning my pillow was missing.

 

[Ablaze]

Well said, and I agree. But we should always remember that dharma is not written in stone, and even the FNT and EP can and should be subject to trial.

Anyhow, I'm seemingly picking up that you think I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm actually not. All I'm doing is qualifying things a bit so as others don't get false impressions. My particular approach is more on the "philosophical" approaches found within dharma, which is just one reason why I don't call myself a "Buddhist", along with the fact that I'm a very skeptical person, as most of us in science tend to be.

Again, I don't feel you're disagreeing with me, but I do feel the need to prevent misunderstandings based on the false impressions left by some of the above posts regarding lax attitudes toward drug use in Buddhism. Others may look at the responses in this thread that say 'those who call themselves Buddhists occasionally partake' and get the idea (a common idea in the West) that Buddhism supports or is otherwise tolerant of recreational drug use, which is not true. My intention is merely to clarify these matters from a canonical standpoint.

 

[Ablaze]

The one I love to cite is: last night I had a dream I was a butterfly, but just
maybe I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm now a human.

Or how about this one: last night I had a dream I ate a giant marshmallow, and when I woke up in the morning my pillow was missing.

Zhuangzi was not Buddhist, nor do I believe he had a set opinion on alcohol and recreational drug use, but nice quote anyway.

 

[Ablaze]

My main objection to this post -

I have trouble with the "the Buddhist perspective", if one takes that literally. Buddhists can be all over the map on so many different issues, thus the different rafts, for example. In Buddhist circles, I've even see the issue as to what nirvana may or may not be or even if it's that important to believe in it. And probably most western Buddhists would hardly recognize the approaches taken by eastern Buddhists in various areas.

- was that although there are different interpretations on matters such as the definition of Nirvāṇa, the precepts (as well as the four noble truths, eightfold path, etc.) on the other hand are spoken of in no uncertain terms. Understandably, disagreements will arise over the Unconditioned, which by its very nature is difficult to comprehend. Even the Buddha acknowledged this, especially after receiving plentiful questions over the nature of Nirvāṇa, which he called "Inconceivable." Yet the precepts are clear and straightforward - in the same way that the four noble truths and other unifying teachings common to all schools of Buddhism are not met with confusion by those on the path. The use of Nirvāṇa as a point of divergence among Buddhists is not a relevant example.

Of all the "rafts" I’ve tested for myself, none regard recreational drugs and alcohol highly. Even in serious Zen communities, if one has taken the precepts, recreational drug and alcohol use is frowned upon.

But we should always remember that dharma is not written in stone, and even the FNT and EP can and should be subject to trial.

They may not be written in stone, but they are stated unequivocally. Those who have tested these teachings for themselves, like those who have taken and keep the five precepts, will understand the benefits of the path through direct experience. If not, they are free to look elsewhere (as I've repeated before).

People searching for loopholes in religion to support their indulgences can search all they like. If having a beer or two is that important to them, they can make that decision without recourse to spirituality, but to expect spirituality to support them on that matter is a bit odd, even insecure. If a person wants to drink and do drugs, do so. I would just advise them not to expect it to be supported by Buddhism.

 

[metis]

My main objection to this post -

- was that although there are different interpretations on matters such as the definition of Nirvāṇa, the precepts (as well as the four noble truths, eightfold path, etc.) on the other hand are spoken of in no uncertain terms. Understandably, disagreements will arise over the Unconditioned, which by its very nature is difficult to comprehend. Even the Buddha acknowledged this, especially after receiving plentiful questions over the nature of Nirvāṇa, which he called "Inconceivable." Yet the precepts are clear and straightforward - in the same way that the four noble truths and other unifying teachings common to all schools of Buddhism are not met with confusion by those on the path. The use of Nirvāṇa as a point of divergence among Buddhists is not a relevant example.

Of all the "rafts" I’ve tested for myself, none regard recreational drugs and alcohol highly. Even in serious Zen communities, if one has taken the precepts, recreational drug and alcohol use is frowned upon.

They may not be written in stone, but they are stated unequivocally. Those who have tested these teachings for themselves, like those who have taken and keep the five precepts, will understand the benefits of the path through direct experience. If not, they are free to look elsewhere (as I've repeated before).

People searching for loopholes in religion to support their indulgences can search all they like. If having a beer or two is that important to them, they can make that decision without recourse to spirituality, but to expect spirituality to support them on that matter is a bit odd, even insecure. If a person wants to drink and do drugs, do so. I would just advise them not to expect it to be supported by Buddhism.

I have no problem with any of the above, and I won't nit-pick any more (well, at least at this point ), so...

Shalom and take care.

 

[Ablaze]

Many thanks. I enjoyed the nature of the discussion. Shalom. :namaste

 

[NoraSariah]

I follow the Law of Attraction, and I think that the misuse of alcohol and drugs can definitely wreck some havoc on the way you attract things, and on the things you attract. If you're using them too much, getting drunk too much, things like that, then it can definitely mess with the mind. A drink once in a while is okay, but misusing drugs like Xanax that's for anxiety and using it for getting a buzz or getting high definitely will mess with the way you think and feel. Alcohol in moderation is okay, but any use of drugs that aren't prescribed, is not. This is just my opinion though.

 

[ChristineES]

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

In my faith, illicit drugs are frowned up. In some denominations, drinking of any kind is frowned upon while others don't mind drinking in moderation, ie a glass of wine with dinner.

 

[OnlyChristCanSaveMe]

Drug is bad, Alcohol is holy.