Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

using psychtropic drugs

2»

Comments

  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited August 2010
    The Pali version of the fifth precept for lay Buddhists, as translated by Peter Harvey is as follows:
    I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness.
    This precept was not mentioned much, if at all, by early counterculture Buddhists like Alan Watts and Jack Kerouac

    Coincidence? :D.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited August 2010
    mugzy wrote: »
    Okay well thanks for clarifying, however I still don't understand how I was playing wannabe games, online or otherwise.

    .
    I was generalizing . It was inappropriate. The very qualities that makes this forum interesting and dynamic makes for some headshaking for oldtimers (just my trip, I know). There is an impulse to "help" when seeing new folks potentially looking down blind alleys that are all too familiar. I should not presume to teach, however there are some things that I as a (flawed) representative of my Sangha should speak out on. One of those issues is psychotropic drug use. I realize that your statement in a different context would have a different meaning, and am addressing attitudes common in these threads.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    Matt is tut tutting.

    I LOLed, even though I don't know exactly what you mean. I was simply addressing the biggest looking fruit of the exchanges... admittedly not directly on topic, but still of the topic.

    With warmth,

    Matt
  • PaulclemPaulclem
    edited August 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    The Pali version of the fifth precept for lay Buddhists, as translated by Peter Harvey is as follows:
    I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness.
    This precept was not mentioned much, if at all, by early counterculture Buddhists like Alan Watts and Jack Kerouac

    Coincidence? :D.


    Just as an aside - Peter Harvey was one of my Tutors at Sunderland University. Great teacher. Being a young headstrong idiot in the late 80s I never went to any of his meditations - which I now regret. He introduced the whole path through the course and gave me a tremendous grounding which I still rely on. Very nice bloke too.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited August 2010
    aMatt wrote: »
    I LOLed, even though I don't know exactly what you mean. I was simply addressing the biggest looking fruit of the exchanges... admittedly not directly on topic, but still of the topic.

    With warmth,

    Matt
    ...Who are you calling a big fruit? ...you're a bit light in the boots yourself fella.
  • Wax_OnWax_On
    edited August 2010
    A good friend of mine took magic mushrooms once at a festival, never came out the otherside.

    Now he lives in a phyciatric hospital.

    Thats the reality of drugs.
  • ThusThus
    edited August 2010
    Wax_On wrote: »
    A good friend of mine took magic mushrooms once at a festival, never came out the otherside.

    Now he lives in a phyciatric hospital.

    Thats the reality of drugs.
    Actually that's one extremely rare reality of drugs.

    If it were THE reality, how would you reconcile it with my 20+ experiences with nothing but positive insight gained?

    Or how would you reconcile it with my friend who has taken over 100 doses of LSD in his lifetime and still leads a perfectly normal and productive life?
  • rachMielrachMiel
    edited August 2010
    wow! seems i inadvertantly opened a bit of a Pandora's Box with this thread. i had no idea the use of psychotropics in Buddhism was such a controversial/heated topic. i've learned a lot by reading everyone's comments. thanks! :-)
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    Thus wrote: »
    Simply put, the substances I'm talking about aren't intoxicating. And taken in responsible doses and safe settings, they do not lead to carelessness.
    Yes, they do.
    I'm assuming you haven't taken any of the substances I'm referring to. They are really quite interesting, especially in a Buddhist framework and context.

    No, they're not.

    Name me anything in the suttas which puts taking recreational drugs in a Buddhist framework and context.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    Thus wrote: »
    If it were THE reality, how would you reconcile it with my 20+ experiences with nothing but positive insight gained?
    That's a matter of opinion. You may see it as positive insight, I frankly don't.
    Or how would you reconcile it with my friend who has taken over 100 doses of LSD in his lifetime and still leads a perfectly normal and productive life?
    Is he Buddhist?
  • ThusThus
    edited August 2010
    federica wrote: »
    Yes, they do.



    No, they're not.

    Name me anything in the suttas which puts taking recreational drugs in a Buddhist framework and context.
    There's no such thing as a "recreational drug." Whether something is recreational or not is completely dependent on the user's intention in taking the substance.

    Have you taken LSD, psilocybin, or any of the other entheogens I am referring to? If not, what makes you so sure they are intoxicants?
  • Wax_OnWax_On
    edited August 2010
    Thus wrote: »
    Actually that's one extremely rare reality of drugs.

    Rare or not if they harm even just 1 person then they are not in accordance with the precepts

    the 1st precept. do not harm any being, Includes yourself.
  • ThusThus
    edited August 2010
    Wax_On wrote: »
    Rare or not if they harm even just 1 person then they are not in accordance with the precepts

    the 1st precept. do not harm any being, Includes yourself.
    That's a pretty slippery slope. There are tons of things that may have harmed some while benefiting countless others.

    I don't understand the need for dogma, in regards to this or anything else. That's my main point.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    Please read post #26.
    Thank you.
This discussion has been closed.