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.
Simple (mabye) question about intoxicants
shanyin
Novice YoginSault Ontario Veteran
Hello all. I hope this doesn't cause any problems.
Did the Buddha ever say that intoxicants are evil? I thought I read this somewhere and would like to find out from some knowledgable Buddhists because this is the quickest way to find out as I do not live near an accessible monastery.
Did the Buddha ever say that intoxicants are evil? I thought I read this somewhere and would like to find out from some knowledgable Buddhists because this is the quickest way to find out as I do not live near an accessible monastery.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Mtns
Let's not use the word "evil" ... a very Christian concept, and worlds away from Buddhism.
By all means, WHATEVER you do, there will be results from it ... you don't need to be a Buddhist to understand that principle! (Buddhists call it "karma").
Buddhism is about training our mind, and ALSO about releasing old habits of being/thinking/feeling and replacing them with new (Buddhist) habits. Habits are only slowly created or removed through repetition and reinforcement. What habits are we reinforcing through our actions?
In terms of intoxicants ... the headspace they produce is the opposite of what a Buddhism practice is trying to produce (a state of clarity and full awareness). Therefore, intoxicants reinforce the habits that are opposite to the direction of Buddhism.
Evil? No ... just counterproductive if you are a Buddhist.
I just also wanted to add personal experiences with weed, Psychedelics.. etc even alcohol. You may hear people say that taking these drugs/drinks will let you know what the truth is, the true nature of reality (psychedelics) or chill you out (weed) or help you have a really fun time (alcohol).. They couldn't be farther from the truth. The truth is here now, it's always here. You don't need to take any drug just to go into any whacked out state to reach some 'blissful' plane to escape reality. Sure these drugs make you question reality but they are dangerous when combined with potentially stressful situations. I've been in a few and I've experienced intense panic attacks and paranoia which just intensify the attachment and clinging to conditioned notions. I have since then stopped and started a daily mindfulness practice. Peace is embedded in the ordinary, in the natural state of mind. Everybody in the world can tap into this source so to speak; one just needs to practice and over time you will relax into what was there the whole time..
You need absolutely nothing; this intuitive 'peace' so to speak is available to everybody from the poorest, sickliest child in poverty to the richest man in the world. No one is left out; all one needs to do is see things as they are. Just this.
You generalized all "intoxicants". I would say that your explanation is valid for some, but for others it is not.
Buddhism practice is trying to produce skillful action, which requires wisdom about the mind, which requires learning about the mind. I argue that some "intoxicants", by which I mean some drugs, are BENEFICIAL to the process of learning about mind, and do not reinforce mental habits any more than eating chicken.
The buddha warned against alcohol. Alcohol makes you addicted to samsara, which is bad. The buddha also said not to depend on ANYTHING in the pursuit of enlightenment. However, this does not mean that a beneficial drug would not be beneficial.
:dunce:
i think it is very important not to accidentally slander things that can be extremely beneficial.
a video on the subject that i enjoy because the monk is cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4wL1eVrPFk
Recreational drugs are classed as 'intoxicants' together with alcohol. I was taught this offline by teachers in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and I'm sure it must be the same for other traditions.
Druggies are always looking for excuses and loopholes -but the fact remains that ones natural mental state, which one should be practising meditation and general mindfulness with, is altered with recreational drugs and alcohol.
If one is under medical supervision and prescription medication then obviously its different.
.
I watched the video and the monk is pointing out the dangers of LSD and the benefits of meditation not saying people should take drugs.
He was lucky when he was spiked with LSD. I knew someone who wrecked a house and chopped off a cat's head after being given it in a cup of tea. I also knew someone who screamed "Death, death !" for hours after taking it, and someone else who ended up being sectioned under the mental health act after heavy cannabis smoking and hallucinogenic taking.
Young lives wrecked.
.
Beneficial, how? Name one beneficial thing about taking drugs and LSD for recreational purposes.
I have spoken to you before regarding your attitude regarding taking drugs.
I Will advise you now, in the interests of this forum, I will remove any future posts of yours I deem controversial, inflammatory or supportive of drug-taking for recreational and mind-altering purposes.
I will not tolerate any posts that seem to advocate drug-taking, and that might compromise the good name and reputation of both this forum and its founders.
Any assumed approval is deemed suspect, and could lead to legal action.
I'm serious.
I trust this is warning enough to you.
I hope you are recovered. What a nasty experience.
Not so much legless as toothless.
Oh dear.
I wouldn't have believed anyone who had said that consumption of alcohol can lead to increased anxiety - except I have experienced it. Under that influence practice, and sometimes sleep, is impossible.
The best intoxicant, for my practice, is none at all.
Do you know anything more about the verb that was translated as "indulging"? All of these appear to only be possible dangers due to over-indulgent behavior. In my opinion, it is perfectly possible to use drugs in a moderate balanced manner where little to no craving or clinging is present, and none of these dangers arise.
While I think everyone can agree that a properly realized arahant doesn't engage in drug use, I don't view drugs, in and of themselves, as any worse than watching entertainment or going to a fancy restaurant to eat fine food. It is possible to enjoy transient pleasures like entertainment, good food, and yes, drugs & alcohol without it being a serious hindrance to a layperson's practice. Although I will admit that drugs can be very dangerous for someone who doesn't understand the suffering that over-indulgence and clinging can cause.
Yeah I thought I was dead/couldn't feel pain so I almost committed suicide. I had constant panic attacks on the apparent 'absurdity' of life that the mind was concocting up until I came across the Buddha's teachings and specifically Zen teachings. I finally realized that I didn't know anything at all. What were these concepts that my mind was concocting? Who was I? What were these sensations? On and on.. this led me to a mindfulness practice. Safe, powerful and intelligent. How can one attach to interpretations of the universe when he or she doesn't know the intrinsic nature of any phenomena that arises? Everything just is as it is, it can't be any other way.. and in this clear seeing one can rest peacefully.
I felt like I had to share my experiences so others can take this into consideration when approached with a decision to take these substances. I do not advocate any type of drug use.
Thank you for the question, I hope I answered it well.
I must take you up on this point, I think because one or two psychologists claim something doesn't make it right. My wife (sorry not to quote my direct experience) is a psychologist who works with kids in deprived areas, when shes dealing with all the social problems and attempted suicides brought on by intoxicants used by children as young as 10 she would love to meet the people who release these videos. 12 year olds who drink a bottle of vodka on a Friday night and take low level drugs every day. There lives are destroyed.
It's OK talking about the "Shamanic" and mind opening effects of these drugs, but the Buddha warns against them directly because the "mind opening" effect is delusional. Use them by all means, but don't pretend they give you some insight into the nature of human existence.
You can trip your way to paradise, but not Nirvana.
I don't care what they said.
I'm telling you, once and for all:.
Taking drugs for purely recreational use goes against the Fifth Precept. Please get this through your head.
Your insistence that taking these drugs for purely recreational use, has some benefits, isn't going to change that. The effects are transitory, illusory and do nothing constructive with regard to improving practice.
I've explained my reasons for deleting your posts (both via PM and on Forum) sufficiently, and trust I will not have to do so again.
My action was not 'horrible'. My action was entirely justified.
I really don't want to have to cover this again, so drop it.
Questionful I'm not having a go at you personally, I'm not attacking so called professionals who give out ideas like this.
Can I say Buddhism isn't like say Islam or some sects of Christianity, It is not thou shall not get drunk. It says don't do this because of the social and moral consequences, I know its the same for others, but Buddhism give a deep intellectual reason why to try not to do it.
However that said you are claiming something far worse, you claim the use of intoxicants has improved you. If I have read what you said correct. This is directly something Buddhism objects to, as a rule (I know about drunk Zen masters etc).
I don't see in any way why they should be confusing you.
we have both told you things in a perfectly clear, succinct and intelligible way.
However, I am glad you have come to the decision you have come to.
Which would indicate we ARE getting somewhere.....
Seems what a lot of people get caught up on is the 'thou shalt not' thing like Tony just said. You're not going to hell, or whatever, just because you do/take/drink [insert substance]. It's really just not recommended for this path.
There seem to be a lot of Buddhists who indulge regardless of this, which shouldn't mean much. Every religion out there has members who "stray" from the guidance of said path. And we can't all be expected to follow the little rulebook perfectly, anyway.
Am I wrong to believe it's more important to find what's right for you? Not necessarily whatever he/she/they say is best?
I see both sides of this puzzle, definitely not taking sides.
Just my two copper.
Yes Questionful, I DID generalize all "intoxicants".
I should have kept it to only those with which I have had personal experience (listed at end) ... so, first my history, then my personal evaluation of the experience.
I was taught to meditate as a child, in the 1950's ... and when the Hippie Movement began I was in my late teens. When all my friends were experimenting with drugs, I did too.
I found NO "intoxicant" that gave the clean, clear "high" of a good meditation. Instead, they all felt "muddy" to varying extents ... even the mood-elevation was "heavy".
Some may object to my inclusion of tobacco as an "intoxicant" ... but I found that after I quit smoking, I had to face some rather strong emotional issues that had been "hiding" behind my habit. Tobacco had functioned the same way as intoxicants usually do, so I include it.
Why settle for hamburger/intoxicants when there is steak/meditation ... which is free, never addictive, never harms your body, never illegal or difficult to procure, the effects of which are under your conscious control, and which brings insights which still look valid once you "come down"?
I do agree with you that there are benefical drugs ... if I wasn't taking beta blockers, my heartbeat would be irregular and I would faint. I consider beta blockers to be a beneficial drug.
List: marijuana, hash, opiumated hash, cocaine, MDA, Quaaludes, crystal meth, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, barbiturates, peyote, LSD, heroin, opium, alcohol, tobacco. The list is probably incomplete, but after a while, I just lost my curiousity.
Doubtless there are many drugs that improve the quality of life.
These are not the drugs we're discussing, though.
The drugs being discussed are those which are taken for purely pleasurable purposes, with a view to warping, altering or affecting the Mind's own ability for rationale, logic and reasoning.
It doesn't mean they're a skilful or Mindful part of life.
It's just more attachment to a quick fix and a perceived short-cut to a blissful state.
But misguided and unsustainable. I haven't seen anybody here specifically, get caught up in the 'thou shalt not' thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And the fact that it's not recommended...Is that not reason enough?
But as you inferred, there is no rulebook. There is a series of recommendations in Buddhism, which advise, and teach about consequences to actions, but nobody's talking about a 'rule book'.
The rules for forum posting, however, are somewhat different.
Yes, if what you believe is right for you is strongly discouraged, then it's advisable to consider the opinions of others when it comes to discovering whatever he/she/they say is best.
as you can see, many have posted direct experience, and none of it positive.
so it would seem that the majority might have the swing on that.
For example, would you kill your mother-in-law because you believe it would be right for you, even though he/she/they would be telling you NOT killing her would be best? There are no two sides to take.
This is a Buddhist forum.
Buddhism discourages and speaks against the taking of drugs for recreational purposes.
There is also a social, moral and legal responsibility to discourage drug-taking advocacy on a public accessible forum, because the legal consequences of doing so can be stringent.
Thank you for your input.
I appreciate your concern.
What I think a lot of Buddhism warns about is thinking this delusional other world / other experience is somehow real or a revelation about reality. That and the social outcome of intoxicants, ask anyone whose woken up with one of their friends wives after 15 pints of beer. And it happens in real life not just soap operas.
but as you progress deeper down the path, 'intoxicants' are no longer necessary i would assume. but everyone is at a different place.
Ack, this seems unskillful to me, rigid thinking at its most solid. I think there are two sides to any coin, if not infinite. Your position seems quite clear on drug-taking, but that does not mean that all definitions of 'intoxicants' 'intoxication' and 'drugs' are anywhere near the same. You saying "this is a buddhist forum" *shiver* if you reflect on that, can you see the problem with stating it as such?
To add to the discussion:
There were some French psychological studies done in the late 70s using cannabis as a method of helping the mind self-reflect more easily. Because there is a strong disassociation of self during the imbibing process, they found that it was easier for people to see their fixations and psychosis while under the influence... ie, a sudden, dramatic increase of awareness while high. As they came out of the experience, they lost the intoxication aspects of the drug, while retaining the reflective aspects. I researched this as part of a paper for a drugs in psychology class, but can't find my bib or I'd offer the link.
This is not to say that it is a tool that is easy to wield, and the possibilities of misuse are real and worth close examination. With so many other simple and directly healthy ways of gaining the same awareness (such as meditation) why do it? 9 times out of 10, or 98 out of 100, its because the person who is about to do the drugs wants the intoxicating effects, or a flash of insight without the discipline. This is unskillful and hopefully will be outgrown when the obviousness hits them.
With warmth,
Matt
Anyways, everyone here who is against drugs and intoxicants probably consumes just as much as someone who does shrooms (they are non-toxic) or marijuana.
There is flouride in our drinking water, there's msg in food, aspartame (causes infertility and even more serious effects) in diet food, not to mention all the prescription drugs that everyone takes. The side-effects of these drugs in commercials are sometimes life threatening, but almost always harmful.
And to those against psychedelics, please remove your brain from your head because your own brain produces the psychedelic drug called DMT.
Where am I unskillful and thinking rigidly??
This IS a Buddhist Forum.
Buddhism DOES discourage and speak against the taking of drugs for recreational purposes.
Used in conjunction with one another, I think it's pretty clear. What point are you making? These are the things being discussed, so I'd welcome elaboration of your point....
Nope. Not at all. It is. What's the problem?
Are you cold?
You make my point beautifully. Thank you.
Suppression of speech is one thing.
Examining the potential consequences is quite another. With freedom of speech comes the burden of responsibility. I'm here to see that if speech is suppressed, then there's a bloody good reason.
And there is.
Oh stop it.
since when did advocating taking drugs for recreational purposes need a better counter argument, on a public forum?
I'm all for airing ideas, but if you'd bothered to read my posts and reasoning, you'd understand that in my position, I must consider the wider picture.
By all means discuss the pro's and con's of recreational drug-taking, but do not expect to be able to recommend it and encourage others to give it a go, as one poster has done. IT'S ILLEGAL.
yes, but not with the same consequential effects... and neither are they looking for it.
This is a strawman argument. It's quite ridiculous to compare these drugs with those taken voluntarily and recreationally in order to alter mental states and give an intoxicating experience.
That's just puerile, ridiculous and nonsensical.
Refusing to talk about certain things isn't the same as silencing the opposition through force.
I am surprised that the solid qualities of this series of statements is unavailable to you, it appears obvious to me. It is disquieting to think that because this is deemed a Buddhist forum, that there would be only Buddhist ideas and Buddhist perspective on issues. "Because Buddhism says so" is a very unskillful counter point to what these other people are bringing up.
We happen to agree on not taking drugs... but in skillful relating, thinking there is only one side is the same as declaring subjective reality hogwash... which is a severe disservice to others. And I did get cold enough to shiver. :eek2:
"This is not to say that it is a tool that is easy to wield, and the possibilities of misuse are real and worth close examination. With so many other simple and directly healthy ways of gaining the same awareness (such as meditation) why do it? 9 times out of 10, or 98 out of 100, its because the person who is about to do the drugs wants the intoxicating effects, or a flash of insight without the discipline. This is unskillful and hopefully will be outgrown when the obviousness hits them."
Your point, huh? We do seem to agree in that sense, though your ownership of the perspective is questionable
With warmth,
Matt
You're ignoring my reasons for silencing PART of their argument.
I didn't silence all of it.
If he is silent completely - that's his choice.
Which bit of this are you not getting, exactly?
But you must also look not only at "your" suffering or lack thereof, but suffering in general. Who are you paying for this drug, did the money go to fund a violent drug cartel, did your decision support suffering? Did your purchase support a bar that sells alcohol to alcoholics and others who suffer and cause suffering because of their clinging to the substance? How do those around you feel about the use of the drug, does it make them uneasy, does it cause suffering? There are many aspects to consider, and ultimately, it is a personal question that you will have to answer yourself through personal reflection and skillful observation of the circumstance.
EDIT: I want to make it clear, when I say your welcome to try the drug/alcohol and reflect on what arises, be sure to stay mindful of the laws in your area, and be respectful of them, I am not advocating that you break a law in any way shape of form
That point is not argued here.
The point I am making - one which you seem completely oblivious to - is that as a Moderator, I have to ensure certain parameters are adhered to.
One of these parameters is that posting falls between legal guidelines and does not breach a point of Law.
Advocating, promoting, advertising or recommending the taking of drugs is one such breach.
Which is why I came down heavily on the poster in question.
Is that a better clarification, for you?
You're choosing to read it this way, and that's your prerogative. I think I made my stance pretty clear.
if people want to take drugs, then go right ahead. knock your self out. literally.
Just don't come onto a public forum and actively encourage others to do so. Particularly one which is focussed on discussing aspects of living life according to Buddhist teaching, including the Eightfold path and 5 Precepts, amongst others.
I don't 'own' anything.
I'm just a Moderator doing my job, which doesn't always entail looking at things here from a purely Buddhist perspective, although that's the fulcrum.
Glad the temperature has risen for you.
I think you misunderstand. I raise my eyebrows at the decision you made to delete the drug advocation post, but I can see your fears of legal responsibility. Me, not holding the responsibility, do not feel it would be skillful in making that decision for you (even in my head.) That's your bag, so to speak.
It just feels like there is a projected, static, closed-headedness in this particular issue, especially as you said "There is no other side" when someone else was saying they see the benefits and pitfalls of drug use. Its not just about exchanging the ideas and tenants of Buddhism, its about relating ideas to people... no? Wouldn't it be more skillful to talk to them rather than hit them over the head with your interpretations of scripture?
With warmth, (and yes, I put on some socks... metaphorically)
Matt
I'm fairly certain this isn't the case. As long as no one is actively involved in the buying or selling of drugs on the forum, you're in the clear. There are any number of public forums where much, much more active drug advocacy discussion occurs without legal ramification. In general, it's not illegal to advocate an illegal activity.
I also agree with the inclusion of tobacco. I too, discovered after I quit smoking that I had used smoking as a way of avoiding confrontation. I had nowhere to go to when challenged, as I used to duck outside to give the other party "cooldown time" *shakes head laughing* Thus I'd avoid an argument a lot.
I admit, I'm still a newbie to Buddhism so I may be being extremely daft.
Respectfully,
Raven
Illegal? In what country? The Internet is global. Here it's freedom of speech. Also, I don't think you're accountable for the words of others. Nor do I have respect for the law.
Sure, but it's inconsistent to criticize others of taking recreational drugs, when you yourself (anyone in general) are seemlessly consuming things far worse than what you're criticizing.
It would have been a strawman argument if I didn't use the word "probably." Also, it is quite fair to compare these. The person who takes an aspirin to relieve a headache is the one guilty of consuming intoxicants as opposed to the person who takes a shroom cap.
"true psilocybin mushrooms are very non-toxic, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a branch of the Center for Disease Control, rated psilocybin less toxic than aspirin." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms
It would have been to your benefit if you researched it before you made that statement.
"DMT (Dimethyltryptamine)"is a naturally-occurring psychedelic drug of the tryptamine family. This drug is found not only in many plants, but also in trace amounts in the human body, where its natural function, if any, is undetermined. Structurally, it is analogous to the neurotransmitterserotonin (5-HT) and other psychedelic tryptamines such as 5-MeO-DMT, bufotenin (5-OH-DMT), and psilocin (4-HO-DMT)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
As far as I know, it is not illegal to speak about past experiences and opinions. No one here is saying "Hey, you there! Take some drugs okay?!" If we were, I could understand the silencing action. As a forum admin myself, I understand some things really do need to be squelched.
Whether or not it's legal I'm not sure about. But I am pretty sure hostility is unnecessary.
What you have said is well said, not daft at all. I think the fact that you can look back and laugh at your own mistakes is a sign of spiritual development.
With Metta,
Guy
Yes, that's exactly what they were doing actually. Good, that's clear then.
I'm delighted you see it that way.
I've checked. And double-checked.
It is. Where has there been hostility?
I've seen animated and passionate discussion, but nobody here is 'hostile'. If they were, I really would have stepped in earlier and ...'squelched' it.....:)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.099.than.html
Intoxicant; a substance that stupifies/excites/stimulates/poisons http://www.answers.com/topic/intoxicate
Heedlessness; paying little care/attention/unmindful/thoughtless
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heedless
Definition of a drug; A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.
In pharmacology, a drug is "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being
Recreational drugs are chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, such as opioids or hallucinogens.They may be used for perceived beneficial effects on perception, consciousness, personality, and behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug
Caffeine; Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthin alkaloid that is a psychoactive stimulant drug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine
Cannabis; The major psychoactive chemical compound in cannabis is Δ<SUP>9</SUP>-tetrahydrocannabinol (commonly abbreviated as THC).... While many drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen, cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogen or psychedelic properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
"Magic mushrooms"; AKA psilocybin mushrooms... Psilocybin (also known as psilocybine) is a hallucinogenic (entheogenic, psychedelic) indole of the tryptamine family...Once ingested, psilocybin is rapidly metabolised to psilocin, which then acts as a partial agonist at the 5-HT<SUB>2A</SUB> and 5-HT<SUB>1A</SUB> serotonin receptors in the brain. The mind-altering effects of psilocybin typically last anywhere from 3 to 8 hours; however, to individuals under the influence of psilocybin, the effects may seem to last much longer, since the drug can distort the perception of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_mushrooms
Cocaine; Cocaine (benzoylmethylecgonine) is a crystalline tropane alkaloid that is obtained from the leaves of the coca plant. The name comes from "coca" in addition to the alkaloid suffix -ine, forming cocaine. It is a stimulant of the central nervous system and an appetite suppressant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine
Ok, that was a lot of information so let me break it down....
The western definition of a drug includes all the above (and many more). All these substances alter normal bodily function.
The Buddha never used the word "drugs" but said "intoxicants that cause heedlessness". Looking at the above we see the definition of intoxicant, and this definition includes caffeine as an intoxicant as well as all the others including cannibis and mushrooms.
So, we can safely say that, according to Buddhism, the above substances are intoxicants..... But the buddha went on to say "...that cause heedlessness..." so which ones of the above drugs cause heedlessness. Well, in the right doses, they all do!
So what is one to do?... Abstain http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstain ask yourself, "am I in need of this?/do I require it?" or is it recreational?
I'm sure the Buddha would not tell someone to stop taking any of the above drugs if they truly required them. In fact, I'm sure I've read a sutta in which the Buddha told his followers to take medicine if required (perhaps the sutta-pitaka encycopidia that is Dhamma-Dhatu or Jason might help on that one?)
Nios.
The OP takes the line that like a shaman drugs give him an insight into his true nature, he is take to task on this and counters with with some research. Everyone else counters with personal experience as well as the massive body of evidence of people who work in the field, not just academic papers.
I have been diagnosed with "prodrome psychosis" and have been told I am suffering "psychotic symptoms" and I smoke cannabis and I am finding that I cannot see through my pychosis at all when I am "high". Perhaps I'd have to be trying to do self-reflection; however I could see it as possible from experience.
I'm a sort of young "Buddhist" and I started smoking cannabis frequently years ago then moved to occassional hullucinigenic and even "hard drugs" and I've really been wanting to make a change. I need some strength. When I started doing heavy meditation immediately I understood marijuana and alchohol are not just hinderences in meditation they really effect the progress. I rarely have anything positive to think about drugs. Usually I just think of it as some sort of adventure. Not only do I not advocate drugs out of compassion I can't even think of a convincing argument for them so it's like what am I supposed to say?
K I'm going to read more posts now.