I definitely agree with you friend. Discernment is needed in telling what is skillful and what is not.
Marijuana, for example, is really good at helping with pain. But, take too much and
you cannot think straight or operate your body properly.
1 Like
Hi friends, thanks for the thoughts here. Mainly Iâm hearing the theme in this little thread that the main principle in terms of state-altering substances is discernment around whether a substance causes heedlessness, and in that case either abstaining from the substance entirely, or at least abstaining from the amount that would cause intoxication and thus heedlessness. This is exactly the point Iâm wondering about, and it accords with my own sense of the issue.
I havenât gotten much response to my formulation of the question as being about the distinction between medicine and intoxicant, so maybe thatâs a red herring here and not the most important part of the conversation.
But I also notice that folks with a more broad interpretation of the precept (that all intoxicants are against the precept, or akusala/unskillful)âvoices that were a significant part of the previous thread about psychedelics (linked in the OP)âare not commenting on this thread. I want to hear any possible objections to this conclusion Iâm making here, so really would love if anyone thinks this conclusion is a wrong interpretation of the precept:
The 5th lay precept prohibits drunkenness because it commonly leads to heedlessness and harm-causing. The use of any state-altering substance in ways where the practitioner is protected from heedlessnessâwhether for medicinal, spiritual, social, or other wholesome purposesâdoes not break the precept. It is up to each practitioner to discern what is skillful substance use for themself (or to adhere to the standards of their lineage).
What do folks think? Am I missing anything? Thanks!