How your religion views drugs/alcohol?

[Ablaze]

How many doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals are participating in this discussion, though? I believe the OP asked about the perspective of religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Translation: "I cannot approach the subject from an honest, objective, rational standpoint due to my own emotional insecurities and hang-ups."

I have NO use for your uncalled-for offense, mind you.

If you do not want to respect what I say, keep silent.

 

[Father Heathen]

How many doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals are participating in this discussion, though? I believe the OP asked about the perspective of religion.

The discussion veered toward the proper usage of definition and terminology, regardless of ones personal religious persuasion.

 

[Father Heathen]

I have NO use for your uncalled-for offense, mind you.

If you do not want to respect what I say, keep silent.

Stay calm. :hug:

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, this one time I decided to report your post. See you later.

 

[metis]

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.

I am not disagreeing with you, as I stated in my previous post. What I did say, which I will repeat, is that any specific teaching is not considered absolute, so some individual discernment is allowed. Let me give you an example.

This evening, my wife and I will share our Sabbath meal and we'll each have a glass of wine (I prefer a Bordeaux and she prefers a Merlot-- wanna guess who wins most of the time? If you guess me, you also lose.). Now, besides the fact that this is a Jewish tradition, we do it because we enjoy it, and I have no evidence through my own experiences that this one glass somehow prevents me from relaxing or meditating (since I'm non-theistic, my "prayers" are really a form of meditation).

Now, if it were to bother you having a glass of wine, I fully understand that it probably best for you not to partake, but you and I aren't the same, nor should we expect wine to act the same way with both of us.

So, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but merely just taking a different position based on my own experience.

 

[Ablaze]

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.

 

[metis]

While I'm at it, in Judaism drinking alcohol is allowed, but getting intoxicated is quite taboo. Jews and Italians drink quite a bit of alcohol per year, and yet drunkenness is quite rare with both as they tend to drink mainly at at meals and in moderation.

In all my years of celebrating with my fellow Jews, I have never seen one drunk yet, but there may have been some I just didn't notice. My wife was born and raised in Italy, and drunkenness is considered to be acting stupid in traditional families.

 

[metis]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

Namaste and shalom

 

[Father Heathen]

Actually, this one time I decided to report your post. See you later.

Well then, I retract my hug.

 

[Vinayaka]

In Hinduism, the abuse of drugs that are clearly not benefiting the individual is frowned upon, yet tolerated. It may vary slightly from sect to sect, and depend on how traditional or orthodox one is.

As for the definition discussion, I'm with FH. There have been a few nasty prescription drugs like Thalidomide, and Oxycontin. So just because it's legal doesn't make it safe, and just because it's illegal, doesn't make it dangerous. Personally, I think alcohol should be society's biggest concern. Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

[Levite]

There are varying opinions in Judaism. Some hold that almost any drug not being taken for perceptible health benefits is prohibited (though all of these accept the use of alcohol in moderation, and some also permit the use of tobacco in moderation). Others are more relaxed in their views, holding that some "softer" drugs may be permissible for occasional recreational or psychospiritual use, if permissible by law. And others hold other opinions falling somewhere in the spectrum between or to either side.

In general, though, mainstream Jewish tradition does not prescribe or hold much place for spiritual drug use, with the exception of a little celebratory alcohol from time to time.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

 

[Vinayaka]

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?

For some reason this reminds me of a scene form the old sitcom All in the Family when Archie wakes up from a hangover after locking himself in the basement, and in his drunk hungover stupor thinks he sees God, which is his black neighbour coming to rescue him.

 

[biased]

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.

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.

 

[biased]

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

I do. My doctors do. My friends do. Your experience is not representative of all. I don't know Brazil but I'm on the West Coast of the USA and I see people refer to aspirin as a drug all the time.

 

[BruceDLimber]

The Baha'i Faith bans recreational drugs entirely, and alcohol with the sole exception of when it is specifically prescribed by a physician to remedy some malady.

 

[Ablaze]

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.

From the Buddhist perspective, the New Age interpretations are like the various unrecognizable pegs that go into reconstructing an old drum out of different material, a drum whose wooden body is replaced, slowly but surely, one peg at a time until it becomes an entirely different drum (see the Ani Sutta for the original version of this story).

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:

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

In the Buddhist tradition, craving, clinging, and indulgence in the sensual pleasures - qualities entangled with the use of intoxicants - are considered to lead to harm and suffering, and are to be abandoned. Of course, others are free to disagree with the Buddhist perspective.

 

[SamIam]

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

Mormons are expected to abstain from alcohol and illegal drugs. Prescriptions should only be used as directed by a doctor. While one is under the unfluence, he or she is not as receptive to the spiritual promptings that come from God. God wants us to be in control of our senses so he can direct and guide us. We should look to other sources for relaxation or stress relief or entertainment. I realize that many people drink in moderation and don't get drunk. Nevertheless, my church encourages no alcohol.

 

[biased]

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:

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

“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.”

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.