Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What are intoxicants in buddhism?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Boundaries and constraints are mental.
Those of us who are free inside, do not stifle under the rules of the society we live in, nor seek to evade them with a clouded mind...?
The effect of mushrooms is somewhat similar to jhana...apparently ( ahem ).
Bleedin' hippies.
I'll bear that in mind next time I toss champignons in my salad...??
Well 'round here' where I live many of the people I know are very conditioned by social morality. But that does not mean everyone who abstains from psychedelics is because of social morality. And Buddhists a part of the idea of the practice is to examine conditioning, but in my community a Buddhist is a very rare person. But for many/most people probably social conditioning is one reason for them and what others in their community would think of them in particular. For myself I abstain because of the risk. If I could 'save game' and then try some LSD I would try it just out of curiosity and if something bad happens go back to 'save game' point as in a computer game. But that is not how reality works. Also for me another huge reason is the tremendous potential of being jailed for years for drug crimes. And for marijuana which is a relatively safe psychedelic the legal risks are by far the greatest risks.
I would venture to include smartphones/social media as an intoxicant also.
Shak I think so but they might be a better alternative. I read an article speculating with some statistics even that for teens and young adults they believe 'the internet' is reducing drug use and delinquency because the internet exists as an alternative way that the brain can get stimulated.
I would also say I don't go too far in reducing stimulation. At one time the newspaper was a really big deal like smart phones are now. For my own use I try to be aware of how much time exactly I am spending and what is not getting done that are alternative choices of spending that time.
My wife and I went to a really nice restaurant last week. On the Maine coast, awesome food, great view of an estuary with lots of wildlife, and two couples seated near us were completely engrossed in their smartphones during the whole meal. They were totally not present for the dining experience and definitely not present for each other. I'm sure their Facebook friends knew what a great time they were having. I see this king of behavior everywhere.@Jeffrey, I'm sure that you're right about it being a better alternative than alcohol and drugs, but I'm not sure by how much.
Yeah Shak when I am with my friends or family at a restaurant I do not use my phone unless to text somebody a message that has to be done like a message such as "we have a table at the restaurant come join us".
On the other hand it is normal for my girlfriend and I to sit at our table in the dining room and each look at our computers. And our dining room we don't actually clear it off much unless company so it is a table of our 'stuff' rather than a table we dine at. It works for us and often we share funny things we see on the internet that we think the other might appreciate. I am careful if my girlfriend asks me something to break off from what I am doing on the computer and listen to what she has said. If I am writing something or cannot break off I might say "hang on a minute" and then say "what were you saying start from the beginning"
Yep phones are banned from the dinner table here. And my pet hate when I go to a restaurant is people posting about their food. CONNECT with the people you're with. Post about it later.
@Shak why assume what they were doing or that they weren't connecting though? I'm sure there are times that is how my husband and I appear, but in reality we are playing Pokemon together, LOL. Of course, we don't do that at every meal or date, and devices aren't allowed at our table either. But sometimes we choose a place just because there is a pokestop there and we need more Pokeballs
I'd hate to think a simple small snapshot of our relationship would be judged so harshly. We live in a beautiful area, and I'm sure tourists think we are wasting our time looking at phones. But we live here and see it all day, every day, so having deer walking down the middle of the road during dinner is nothing new for us. We still enjoy and appreciate it. But we don't take our dinner time to gawk and talk pictures of it, nor do we find that more worthy of time spent than what we choose to do. Just another perspective.
I would agree with the assessment that to summarily lump all drugs, as defined as any substance affecting an alteration in brain chemistry, under a single category so broad as "intoxicant." If indeed we were to do such a thing, then we would have to include sugar in our list of intoxicants because consuming sugar alters brain chemistry. As a matter of fact, reading these words right this very moment is altering your brain chemistry. All kinds of things are happening at the molecular level as you parse and understand these words.
Consider too substances that alter brain chemistry but are not considered classical intoxicants. Antidepressant medications come to mind, especially the most commonly prescribed class, the SSRIs. Do these drugs alter brain chemistry? Oh yes. Profoundly so. Not only do they modify brain chemistry, they modify its very structure.
But then, so does experience. What we often see in the depressed brain are structural abnormalities where the amygdala, the center for fear response and emotional regulation, shows increased synaptic density and activity, and the hippocampus, the region responsible for learning and memory, shows reduced activity. Antidepressants, along with things like exercise, can reverse this structural difference to varying degrees and increase the rate at which the brain can create new neural pathways.
So when it comes to drugs, defined as anything that affects the brain's function, there is no clear cut answer. It is up to every person to make up his or her own mind about what is or is not good for them. I think that deep down, people know their own truths.
I don't think in Buddhism though that (as far as i have seen) the definition is simply something that alters your brain. It is something that brings about a likelihood for heedless and a change in perception away from the N8FP rather than towards it. What that means, of course, has to be investigated from everything we take in, from cold medicine to illicit drugs to tv to facebook. That is definitely on each of us. But paying attention to the things that cause changes in our thought patterns and perceptions and actions are the things (I think) that are most important, and yes that includes things we read and watch.
Agreed -- especially with respect to mental consumption. I've stopped reading comments on news articles, and my mental health has definitely improved.
Very well said @Refugee, for me sugar is definitely a mind altering substance. I am very aware of the effect of food on mood, body and mind arisings. I am just a flesh bag of karma
Who remembers this:
'gnothi seauton'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
Yes, "I"Phones have a lot to answer for.
Larry Luddite
I have to agree while on the other hand, psychedelics did open that door for many people and while many of us have left the drugs behind, the Buddhism has endured their loss.
For myself I guess now I am wondering if Buddhism would have influenced my Taoist path without hearing the views of Allan Watts and the like while being on LSD. Would i be more rigid and exclusive in my view? Would i have found Buddhism through the respect honoured to Buddha in the Taoist Tai Chi Society? It doesnt really matter though. What matters is I am here now and where I go from here.
I actually started smoking cannabis again recently and I can't worry about whether or not that makes me a bad Buddhist because it helps give me a better sleep. Every few days I burn one about an hour before bed because it doesn't work if I get back up to do it. I didn't smoke the stuff for about two years but now I'm using it as a medication rather than some pill made in a lab.
I don't drink and I've replaced cigarettes with vaping juice and am gradually cutting the nicotine level down so I won't be feeling bad about a little weed.
@Jeffrey, Hey, holy smokes it's good to see You!
Not all substances or activities that create addiction or can be used as evasions from reality fall under the category of "intoxicants."
Intoxicants in the Buddhist sense specifically refer to substances that cloud the mind, that compel us carry out volitional actions stemmed in defilements (greed, aversion, delusion) and therefore perpetuate the cycle of dukkha and ignorance.
I can only harm myself if I consume high amounts of sugar and to a lesser degree impair my interpersonal relationships through excessive use of my cellphone.
But we may find ourselves capable of dangerous actions under the effects of drugs or alcohol.
In the Sigalovada Sutta, or Advice for the Layman, we find what are viewed as the consequences of indulging in intoxicants, which definitely are not situations which take place just from including too much sugar in one's diet:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
Hi @David good to see you too!
I was a hippy back then, so salad wouldn't have been cool. We usually picked some mushrooms and added them to mushroom soup ( we were camping ), then did some tree hugging and then laid on our backs looking at the stars and merging with with the universe or something. I think anyway.
The 'practitioner'
... (I guess in a sense it holds some truth)
A couple of caveats before I state my opinion.
There are different answers here to your question. Some may be right. Some may be wrong. They may all be wrong. We won't know if one is the correct answer. We only know our opinion. Just this week I had a discussion about karma with a monk. He gave a completely different answer to one aspect of karma than another monk gave. I have no idea which monk was right, and which one was wrong, of if they were both wrong.
We need to all get over the either/or concept of what is right and what is wrong.
Now here's my opinion of you trying to justify your use of psychedelics based on they led you to Buddhism, therefore they must be okay to use. Willie has been out drinking; he is unfit to drive. He is speeding through the city, his car jumps a curb, he runs over and kills a mother holding a baby, and he crashes into a store front. The last thing he sees before he passes out completely is that the store he has crashed into is a Buddhist book store. In jail, after he has totally sobered up, he decides that he is going to adopt Buddhism as a way of life, and that he was led to Buddhism by his use of alcohol, therefore using alcohol must be good and it should become a regular part of his life.
I know 2 criticisms I will get -- too extreme, too simple. Nevertheless I think it's a valid comparison in thought processes.
Speaking as someone who has had more drink and drugs than most people have had hot dinners, I'll paraphrase @SpinyNorman's signature here, they are all a load of old bollocks, I'd rather have a peaceful mind than a drug hit these days. If psychedelics led to enlightenment the world would full of Buddhas, it's not. The psychiatric wards are full of acid and other drug casualties. 'Nuff said.
Edit: Just wanted to add nice to see you all back @Jeffrey, @vinlyn. and @David.
Intent matters. If you take psychedelics to have a good time, it may lead you in a certain direction. If you use it for spiritual awakening, it may lead you in a completely different direction. It's all about intent.
In regard to this thread I was thinking back to a conversation with a Thai monk just a week ago. It wasn't about this specifically. But it was being sure that we separate and not mix Buddhist thought and cultural thought as we are trying to understand ourselves. It seems to me that we could also add a third category to keep separate -- "self thought"...in other words things that we may have already justified in our minds.
How could a hippie who hugged trees not like hugging people?
Or it's all about why would you need psychodelics in the first place.
There are other shortcuts to spiritual awakening.
And passtimes to have a good time...
Yeah you keep telling yourself that.
This. 100%
Nobody was hurt or killed in my psychedelic escapades. So... not sure about that analogy. I also never said that they were OK to use. I'm just posting my personal experience with them.
On the whole I thought the occasional, sparing use of psychedelics has been good for the planet. It has led more people to spiritual experiences and sparked a number of movements resulting in the new age... you could say the whole colour scheme of the flower power movement was "psychedelic" in nature. You could also say that the hippie movement and those "the whole world is alive" experiences may have sparked conservation efforts such as Greenpeace.
If more of the people so interested in the building of financial or ideological empires were induced to take LSD or ayahuasca for a little bit, the world might be a very different place. There is more to life than just ever more abstract forms of accumulating 'stuff'.
Sorry I just cannot accept condoning the use of psychedelics for the "good of the planet". That's just me, but I really have issues with people trying to justify it being spiritual and compatible with Buddhism.
I agree, and agree strongly.
If someone says, "I like drugs (including psychedelics) just because I like them", okay.
If someone says, "I like drugs because of the culture I am in", okay.
If someone tries to put it onto Buddhism, then I will ask, "Show me in the Tipitaka where it suggests the use of drugs."
I do not believe we can accept any religion in its entirety. Certain parts of it are the result of primitive, conservative cultures prevalent at that historical stage. The attitude toward drugs and sex, especially - it has more to do with the conservative nature of society at that time and less to do with spirituality.
There is truth in what you say.
And it's so convenient. But then you are getting into what I mentioned earlier about culture versus Buddhism.
I think it also has to do with the monks life where not only drugs and sex but most anything (music, shows, dancing, eating as entertainment) they were trying to not have any craving things around I guess. But I do think nonetheless you can bring the idea of not harming others into drug use and sex. Monks may not do either or even be in the same room as drugs or alone with a woman. But modern lay people can have sex and do some casual drugs yet keeping in mind an idea of non-harm. But I wouldn't say not harming yourself is a unique Buddhist idea and you could just take the idea and say it is epicurean idea and need not relate anything to Buddhism or Buddha. So if you were trying not to harm others with drugs you would choose safer drugs and safer ways to use the drugs you select. Etc. If you were not harming with sex then you would need consent and appropriate ages and so forth or whatever idea comes in mind to you how to have your sex life.
Who really knows how the wise ancients first obtained 'deep insight'...
Mushroom?
Archaeological evidence suggests that psilocybin-containing mushrooms have been used by humans since prehistoric times. It has been argued that prehistoric rock art near Villar del Humo, Spain, offers evidence that Psilocybe hispanica was used in religious rituals 6,000 years ago,[2][3] and that art at the Tassili caves in southern Algeria long shaft member from 7,000 to 9,000 years ago may show the species Psilocybe mairei
Or.....
Ganja ...It's been around for thousands of years ...
Hemp is called ganja (Sanskrit: गञ्जा, IAST: gañjā) in Sanskrit and other modern Indo-Aryan languages.[175] Some scholars suggest that the ancient drug soma, mentioned in the Vedas, was cannabis, although this theory is disputed.
Cannabis was also known to the ancient Assyrians, who discovered its psychoactive properties through the Aryans.[177] Using it in some religious ceremonies, they called it qunubu (meaning "way to produce smoke"), a probable origin of the modern word "cannabis".[178] The Aryans also introduced cannabis to the Scythians, Thracians and Dacians, whose shamans (the kapnobatai—"those who walk on smoke/clouds") burned cannabis flowers to induce trance.
Cannabis sativa from Vienna Dioscurides, 512 AD
Cannabis has an ancient history of ritual use and is found in pharmacological cults around the world. Hemp seeds discovered by archaeologists at Pazyryk suggest early ceremonial practices like eating by the Scythians occurred during the 5th to 2nd century BCE, confirming previous historical reports by Herodotus.[180] It was used by Muslims in various Sufi orders as early as the Mamluk period, for example by the Qalandars.[181] Smoking pipes uncovered in Ethiopia and carbon-dated to around 1320 CE were found to have traces of cannabis.
A study published in the South African Journal of Science showed that "pipes dug up from the garden of Shakespeare's home in Stratford-upon-Avon contain traces of cannabis."[183] The chemical analysis was carried out after researchers hypothesized that the "noted weed" mentioned in Sonnet 76 and the "journey in my head" from Sonnet 27 could be references to cannabis and the use thereof.[184] Examples of classic literature featuring cannabis include Les paradis artificiels by Charles Baudelaire and The Hasheesh Eater by Fitz Hugh Ludlow.
In the mid-1800s, Irish physician William Brooke O'Shaughnessy, who had studied the drug while working as a medical officer in Bengal with the East India company, brought a quantity of cannabis with him on his return to Britain in 1842, provoking renewed interest in the West.
I should point out, I'm not in any way advocating the use of drugs as part of ones spiritual journey (there are a lot of F#@#ed up people out there, thanks to drugs) however I have no 'aversion' against their use and nor do I have any 'desires' to encourage their use...Just an open mind on the subject ...
The world has been doing good and bad stuff before, after, with and without the use of psychedelics too.
People who have become addicted have suffered, many have ruined their psyche and their lives.
I do not judge people who indulge in psychedelics, but we don't have to romanticise the concept either: there is a lot of human suffering that as outsiders we cannot see.
In my humble opinion, saying that the sparing use of psychedelics has been good for the planet, is tantamount to saying the two world wars were necessary and beneficial to the planet.
Never mind all the human lives that got lost: all's well that ends well...
And let's not forget that many of the yuppies that haunt Wall Street consume drugs and have been doing it for over sixty years.
The world is still not better for that.
I think you'll find the types of drugs done on Wall Street are stimulants like cocaine, crystal meth and alcohol although the latter isn't a stimulant. It still seems to be used by people who take stimulants. Drugs that promote egotistical behaviour. I have had nothing to do with such damaging substances. That's not to say psychedelics are safe. It's just a different kettle of fish.
Just as a side note, psychedelics are generally not very addictive, compared to for example heroin or crack cocaine or even opium. Any form of easy escapism can be addictive, however, including food, video games, alcohol and sex.
Yes, but there is a lot of suffering caused by closed minds that we can see. The very simple point I was trying to make is that for some people psychedelics can be a door, and have been for a very long time.
Current reactionary attitudes to drug use are largely a result of American policy which is driven by politics, not medical necessity. You are talking from fear and conditioning, not knowledge.
However the drugs of choice are cocaine and speed, not psychedelics. A little bit of information goes a long way in these cases, one should be educated on the subject before venturing an opinion, or at least couch one's opinion in more cautious terms
I would like to ad a personal note to this thread. About six months ago I decided to stop drinking alcohol. I wouldn't say that I was a heavy drinker, but I would consume some alcohol almost every day. Usually in the form of a glass or 2 of wine with dinner or a bottle or two of beer while doing household chores. I had two goals, relieve some stress on an already strained marriage and loose the extra 20lbs I've been carrying around for a while. I never thought that I drank enough to "cloud my mind". I was wrong. It's utterly amazing how much sharper I am mentally. I am much more skillful in dealing with people, my wife and children in particular. I'm not going to say that I will never drink some wine or beer ever again, but it will certainly not be on any sort of a regular basis. Now if I could get my wife to put down her god damned iPhone now and then...
People who choose a lifestyle that does not include drugs, don't do it out of fear nor conditioning.
They learn about consequences and choose not to.
Out of pure logic, will and reasoning.
Why did I not choose to do drugs?
Because I don't need them: I fill my voids with what I consider to be more wholesome stuff.
Out of pure personal choice, not because society nor religion determined I had to.
There is a hospital nearby which once a week supplies a dose of drug for free to addicts.
These people don't look like they are owners of their actions and free to choose, and they definitely don't seem better off than the average conditioned, fearful person of your ideas.
I think my tone has been respectful, and I have learned enough of drugs at school and university.
A substance bandaid is a substance bandaid, from cigarette to speed.
I am not bothered that we have different opinions and I don't see why you should either.
The world will be a far better place when human beings assume full responsibility of their lives as they are, and don't rely on external bandaids of their choice to fill the voids in their lives and heal their traumas or seek stimulation.
Whether we talk of religion, alcohol, gaming or drugs.
Nothing so exciting as life itself to get high.
Well when you start comparing the sparing use of psychedelics to approving of two World Wars, then I think a slight prod towards moderating one's language is appropriate.
I'm not denying that there are risks involved with taking drugs, the proverbial "bad trip" or even worse drug-induced psychosis which can drastically change people's lives. That is the reason I have never tried any of these drugs myself, I don't see the need to. But my view of those non-Buddhists who do choose to run the risk is neutral.
Even more so, I think psychedelics should probably be legalised, much like marijuana. The risks of keeping these things underground and in the criminal circuit are significantly higher, you get a lot of cowboy operators and because of that things go wrong more often. I realise in the Netherlands we are more progressive towards these issues than many other places worldwide, but I think it's an inescapable conclusion.
To come back to the Buddhist view, I do think psychedelic drugs are worse "intoxicants" than alcohol, and if you are serious about keeping the five precepts then I would advise to steer clear of them.
Rather than psychedelics being legalized, people should receive more information and education.
Learn that you can seldom sustain drug use as mere recreation or distraction for long, before it becomes addictive.
There is a reason why some people never need to do drugs, and others do.
People should learn to become more resilient and self-reliant.
Psychologically strong people don't need drugs, and resilience is something that we build with some good will.
It is seldom a given.
Agreed. It all starts with educating our children and teenagers. Resilience is a much needed skill in todays world.
I see a lot of words being put in people's mouths here. Who said they needed psychedelic drugs? Who is condoning, justifying or suggesting psychedelics?
I see people saying that ironically, psychedelics turned them onto the dharma and getting attacked for it.
@techie Who said my experiences on psychedelics were just recreational? My experiences on mushrooms and LSD came straight out of the textbooks on shamanism. But really, at least these days I view drug dreams as just that, just one samsaric dream within another.
Nobody was attacked, @David.
Can people no longer digress without anyone getting overly sensitive?
We do need to be less sensitive.
Im trying to be a little less......
No, I think people need to be more considerate, and mindful of their speech.
Right Speech doesn't always involve being mindful of your words.
Tone plays a big part.
Right Speech can also mean keeping your mouth shut.
I would bring peoples' attention to my avatar.
Some could do with taking it to heart.