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.
Serious question - Siddharta Gautama and marijuana
Ok,
The 5th precept as we all know has been commonly associated with abstaining from taking intoxicants...Precepts, we must remember are closer to guidelines not strict rules
The 5th precept..though has been difficult to be directly translated ...it is somewhat blurry in its meaning from its Sanksrit form
Liberal translations taken of the 5th precept say that one should not become intoxicated from taking these drugs...
Anyway, This post is not coming from a marijuana user.... I am just commenting in an all seriousness... about the kinda urban myth that Siddharta Gautama lived primarily on marijuana seeds and lived through the early years before his enlightenment. Where did this originate from and how plausible is this? Everywhere i searched this it has always been from some skewed marijuana smoking site advocating marijuana use, cant seem to find any real basis for this theory.
Marijuana has in ancient times have commonly been associated with mystical practises, from Hindu worship, use of meditation. Same with Sufism and that
It seems to me that marijuana use has spirtually been not some form of dependency or kind of attachment, or even a direct act of unison with god or the divine formless (awakening), but more of a ritual form, that is not meant to lead to any attachments.
Anyway feel free to leave comments and hopefully clear things up a bit from different perspectives. I guess noone knows for sure... just like what Buddhism is to different people.. because noone was there at the time !
Namaste
The 5th precept as we all know has been commonly associated with abstaining from taking intoxicants...Precepts, we must remember are closer to guidelines not strict rules
The 5th precept..though has been difficult to be directly translated ...it is somewhat blurry in its meaning from its Sanksrit form
Liberal translations taken of the 5th precept say that one should not become intoxicated from taking these drugs...
Anyway, This post is not coming from a marijuana user.... I am just commenting in an all seriousness... about the kinda urban myth that Siddharta Gautama lived primarily on marijuana seeds and lived through the early years before his enlightenment. Where did this originate from and how plausible is this? Everywhere i searched this it has always been from some skewed marijuana smoking site advocating marijuana use, cant seem to find any real basis for this theory.
Marijuana has in ancient times have commonly been associated with mystical practises, from Hindu worship, use of meditation. Same with Sufism and that
It seems to me that marijuana use has spirtually been not some form of dependency or kind of attachment, or even a direct act of unison with god or the divine formless (awakening), but more of a ritual form, that is not meant to lead to any attachments.
Anyway feel free to leave comments and hopefully clear things up a bit from different perspectives. I guess noone knows for sure... just like what Buddhism is to different people.. because noone was there at the time !
Namaste
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Industrial hemp and psychoactive cannabis are different. You can buy hemp seed granola, protein, etc, and it does not contain THC. There's a big difference between the two.
As far as the Buddha goes, I'd be willing to say that he probably did eat hemp seeds at some point during his life. However I highly doubt it was anything significant, or that he subsisted on them entirely. Even if he did, what difference would it make?
As you stated, the precepts are guidelines - not rules. There's no Buddhist inquisition that's going to force people to stop drinking or doing drugs, because it's up to the individual to choose their path in life.
I C... sorry shouldv checked here beforehand properly...anyways so looking at that i can say noone really knows.. lol
I fully agree with you though, that it does not make any significant difference to anyones practice or to Buddhism... though just for curiosity's sake..i was just interested in this because it seems to have been derived out of thin air. Like how would anyone know such an intricate detail of what happened 2500 + years ago. Sought of alluding to my point that alot of things in Buddhism and even religion in general seem to have these theories or beliefs (interpretations) that stem from nowhere...and sometimes when taken literally can cause alot of confusion and harm. Also i was interested in it in light of spiritual practices of ancient Hindus in particular (of which Siddharta Gautama was influenced by at the time) and the use of marijuana or even other hallucinogenic/psychoactive drugs which are used by Buddhist poets such as Han Shan (magic mushrooms) as well as other mystical religions.
There just seems to be this demonization of marijuana in contemporary west which i dont think there was. People tend to polarize everything nowadays without seeing through the bullshit so to speak - marijuana does have some healing properties... and yes can be addictive like pretty much everything in life... even meditation (when attachment is formed to the method of practice of it)!
But thanx for clearing up the matter about hemp seeds and THC. It does seem highly irrelevant from that point of view.
Hi caz namyaw
Do you want to explain your statement... like where you got that from.? Or did you somehow go back in time mind-moment by moment to Buddha's time and investigate it....I joke lightly with no intention of patronizing you in anyway.. (although if u did that wouldve been quite cool... and i don't expect you to tell me if you did
Anyway i dont wanna spark another arguement.. only wanted to know if anyone actually had proper knowledge of how that theory came about.
They are not conductive to mind training in concentration anyone with even the smallest amount of wisdom knows that heaping hallucinagenic agents upon our already deluded mind will not result in any clarity but more confusion.
Buddha may well have tried them at some stage and found them unconductive, People have tried to infer that his enlightenment was non other then a hallucination as well through a theoretical diet of Hemp seeds.
So I say not so...Buddha hasnt proven himself to be a hypocrite.
Thanx for clearing up your statement. I dont think anyone or perhaps the general information that i gave is in regard to his enlightenment being out of hallucination. Thats not what i suggested or what info i have read pointed to. All i stated was if Buddha survived primarily on hemp seeds... at one stage of his life.. prior to his enlightenment. I think you are inferring too much from that. Im sorry if you gathered that i was suggesting anything about pro-active use of marijuana by the Buddha... with all my dialogue about the ritual practice of marijuana in spirituality. It was just a side not about the ritual practice involving marijuana. I also want to distinguish the use of marijuana in a ritual practice, not as a means to an end of anything... as some Hindu practices have it.
There are religions that feel there is spiritual value in getting intoxicated, usually using psychadelic plants. Buddhism isn't one of them.
That said there is a difference between eating hemp seeds, wearing fabric made from hemp, or even using marijuana or opiates for medicinal purposes. I don't think the Buddha was opposed to health care. I think he just felt that pointlessly numbing the mind was not conducive to awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.than.html
"And how is one an individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others? There is the case where a certain individual himself abstains from the taking of life and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from the taking of life. He himself abstains from stealing and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from stealing. He himself abstains from sexual misconduct and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from sexual misconduct. He himself abstains from lying and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from lying. He himself abstains from intoxicants that cause heedlessness and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from intoxicants that cause heedlessness. Such is the individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.099.than.html
An essay on the subject by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_36.html
I don't know of the hemp-seed myth, but the Buddha's opinion of any intoxicant whatsoever is crystal clear.
There is no teaching in Buddhism that is ever 100% taken to be true. Because nothing has been written in text at the time of Buddha's lifetime, which i believe in part is because words can have many different interpretations and it would be dangerous to try and spread written texts like it is truth. Buddhism spread by missionary-style, through verbal discourses and was constantly transformed and given interpretative meaning from cultural context and traditions. To say that the Buddha's was opinion of intoxicants is "crystal clear" is an incorrect assumption. You should always questions what you hear, even if they come from seemingly higher authority or more wise..Always investigate yourself. The greatest Buddhist teachers have frequently said this.
With regards to the sutta's you have given me... If you've ever done studies of directly translating ancient pali or sanskrit texts to english, you will notice the obstacles that one faces in doing this. Often there are terms with ambiguous and multiple meanings and even contradicting ones. I advise you to read :
www.smith.edu/philosophy/TTT%208_24_04.rtf on Translation as Transmission and Transformation, specifically talking about Asian Buddhist texts
"Some naïve readers might read a translation and believe that they are thereby reading the text that was translated. But nobody involved in the translation business could ever take this view seriously. When we read a translation, we are reading a text in a target language composed by a translator or a team of translators who were reading in the source language. To be sure, different translators call the reader’s attention to their presence and agency to different degrees, some occluding their presence in a presentation that suggests the presence of the source text, others calling constant attention to their choices and methodology. But whether or not the translator acknowledges this act of transformation, translation is always an act of this kind."
- Jay Garfield
It is interesting that you gave a link for a translation of the Maha-Mangala sutta which is from the Pali Canon, written some five centuries after the Buddha passed away. Even in that link, if you click on Piyadassi's alternate translation, the part that is translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu as "He himself abstains from intoxicants that cause heedlessness and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from intoxicants that cause heedlessness." is translated by Piyadassi as "To cease and abstain from evil, to abstain from intoxicating drinks, and diligent in performing righteous acts — this is the highest blessing" Now it is clear that there is a difference here, but who is correct? That is ultimately up to you to judge, and you are in all right to question both of these two or agree with one of them over the other. You can also question what they classified as "intoxicants" back then. Anyways, regardless, these are just sutta's and is not unquestionable word of mouth discourse of the Buddha.
Also, well since this thread has been brought back to life from the dead, I have actually read now about what i feel has been the origination of this hemp seed thingy. According to a certain tradition of Mahayana, it was believed that the Buddha subsisted on a hemp seed a day in the 6 years prior to his enlightenment. Although i have not read it, but this has been documented in the book "Plants of their Gods:Their Sacred, Healing and Hallucinogenic Powers" by Hoffman and Schultes : http://www.amazon.com/Plants-Gods-Sacred-Healing-Hallucinogenic/dp/0892819790
Although im not sure of the credibility of the book, since i have not read. This Mahayana tradition would have also sourced much of its beliefs from interpretations of ancient texts.
Also checking out http://www.cnsproductions.com/pdf/Touw.pdf "Religious and Medicinal uses of Cannabis in India, China and Tibet"
It is believed that traditonally, Tibetans viewed cannabis as sacred.
And heres somewhat a more condensed form of the background to spiritual use of Cannabis :http://sparcsf.org/spiritual-use-of-cannabis
Though do take it as a grain of sand.
Having said all this though, im not arguing for the validity or justification in the use of marijuana for spiritual practise, must be clear. And the hemp seed thing probably had no real relevance to getting high anyway due to no THC working factor. But it just seems to me like views of cannabis plants or what not were not so unnecessarily polar like they are today.
The use of marijuana is not widespread amongst Hindus and never what we would call recreationally. It is used by Naga babas, some Nath yogis and Kaula tantrikas who make a solution that is used for certain rituals. Marijuana is however, used in many Ayurvedic preparations (though not modern pot, which has been developed to concentrate THC to astronomical levels).
Yeh , i understand what your saying...tho the Vinaya, that are rules and conduct or monastics..monks and nuns right...is it so clear for lay people tho? But i agree what your saying though.. the reasons.. loss of control and abilty to act righteously, there would be a common understanding that this would extend towards lay people as well, though not in such a strict sense so to speak.
My impression of marijuana use in Hindu as ritual is same as urs. Thanx for clarifying the use of milder preparation of marijuana in ayurveda
This wording is interesting: by twice saying "that cause heedlessness," the Buddha leaves open the question whether intoxicants which don't cause heedlessness are included in the prohibition.
For not all substances which are called "intoxicants" necessarily cause "heedlessness," specifically: some of them have other effects. But clearly, the ones which cause heedlessness (such as alcohol) are advised against, if not "forbidden."
This essay is specifically about alcohol. However, the effects of alcohol and marjiuana are very different. Therefore this essay is not about the specific "intoxicant" being discussed in this thread.
Any intoxicant that causes heedlessness, at least.
Its not so black and white.
What i feel is... ultimately the choice is yours... you are free to experiment...see if it actually brings you any fullfillment or meaning. But it seems there is common understanding that the Buddha rejected all those...at least ultimately. You wouldn't just tell any person from the street, however, to experiment with mind altering substances....and to see if it brings meaning..cause generally not everyone is wise or self controlled to investigate it properly. People will just meaninglessly abuse these substances and become a slave to them, justifying their addiction as being some soughta spiritual quest...So generally i feel the wise would tell the general population to stay away from 'intoxicants'
It is said that Buddha directed specific teachings to specific people... depending on the spiritual traits of the person...There are often paradoxes in Buddhism (which is emphasised in Zen), that suggest contradictory teachings are given.. but to different people depending on they way they are.
To me, my view comes about from quite some examples of buddhists or spiritual thinkers that used intoxicants. Like hearing about cases of Zen monks getting drunk, Buddhist poets using mushrooms, traditions of marijuana use in perhaps even Tibet also? and other places, also ppl like Chongyam Trungpa and Alan Watts who were frequent alcohol drinkers.... could you really call these people any less Buddhist because of that? I mean when you see and hear them speak ... you can tell they have a profound understanding or being...just can't ignore that. It seems to me like these ppl had seen some great insight...and when coming back to the institutionalised, money driven world....somehow feel choked by the rigidness of it all...and play around with the idea of taboo and social dividedness by their expression of actions?
Ultimately the fundamental idea... is that we are all human... and there is nothing wrong with that. Just is important to explore that and understand the reality of the conditioning and being
anyway have rambled on too much... just didnt want this thread to end up a debate on marijuana use... theres other posts for that :P
Make of it what you will.
I haven't smoked in a while, but used to regularly and may pick it up again. My favorite thing to do while smoking is to, as you say, get lost in thought. For me personally, I don't think it takes away from mindfulness. It also helps me to see the full impact of things, and the obviousness of the truth hits me so hard. Things just hit me harder and faster after smoking.
You can bend the dharma as long as you like but it will just stay what it is.
This thread is 2 years old.
a lot of the participants have 'moved on' so if you really feel the need to discuss this, start a new thread.
Two:
the whole reason the Buddha didn't specifically refer to alcohol, but used the term "intoxicants" is that use of any substance - inhaled, imbibed or ingested - that alters the mind-state is frowned upon, and discouraged.
On this forum, we do not condone, encourage or advocate use of any substance, used for recreational purposes, which fall into that category.
Members might well use them if that's what they want to do, but generally, the practice is unskillful and not mindful or in keeping with the Buddha';s teachings, and as such, that opinion will be given.
and this, by the way, Is utter bullS.t.