Clearly not, but there’s nothing in the precepts or EBTs which say that Dhamma follower cannot participate in a shamanic ceremony or use these substances - unless said substance causes pamada.
And even that is arguable, given that these traditions see themselves as healers and these substances are seen as medicine, and we know the Buddha allowed substances which caused pamada to be used as long as they were medicine.
To technically if Western psychology were to accept these substances and incorporate it into its practice, a Buddhist could take them (presumably under the supervision of a therapist trained in this) and not break the precept.
I’m just arguing the same would apply to traditional healers who use ayahuasca or psilocybe cubensis, etc.
Obviously this requires the presence of the traditional healer or modern therapist who is a professional. This does not mean that a Buddhist can take these substances willy nilly for recreational reasons - that would break the precept.
After a certain point, you have to decide if you are practicing the Buddhist path, or not. If you want to practice shamanism, that is fine, but let’s not pretend that the Buddha approved of the use of drugs for spiritual practice. He very clearly didn’t.
You can try to force a square peg into a round hole and claim there is a loophole in the precept which allows someone to use drugs, but let’s be honest-- those who want to use drugs will always find a justification. Mental gymnastics abound.
Like many people before and since, the Buddha recognized the medicinal value of cannabis and he recommended it as a cure for rheumatism (aṅgavāta). The patient should be placed, he said, in a small room filled with steam from a tub of boiling water and cannabis leaves (bhaṅgodaka), and inhale the steam and rub it on the limbs (Vin.I,205).
The taking of intoxicants is defined as the volition leading to the bodily act of ingesting distilled or fermented intoxicants.[10] It can be committed only by one’s own person (not by command to others) and only occurs through the bodily door. For the precept to be violated four factors are required: (1) the intoxicant; (2) the intention of taking it; (3) the activity of ingesting it; and (4) the actual ingestion of the intoxicant. The motivating factor of the violation is greed coupled with delusion. No gradations of moral weight are given. In taking medicines containing alcohol or intoxicating drugs for medical reasons no breach of the precept is committed. There is also no violation in taking food containing a negligible amount of alcohol added as a flavoring.
Well putting some substance into your body, that hasn’t been thoroughly tested against a set of standards, is not having much loving-kindness towards oneself. We aren’t living in a time when such testing isn’t available.
The intention for using these substances is also important. If the intention is intoxication, hallucination etc and not genuinely medicinal, then there is a problem. They may be harmful on the long term - I have come across many young people who may have not developed Paranoid schizophrenia if they haven’t been smoking skunk which affected their teenage brains.
Those people who are addicted due to underlying emotional problems bring upon themselves another layer of complications relating to the substances they are abusing. It takes a long time to overcome one problem, if only to get to the underlying core problems, because therapy wont work for an intoxicated mind and the medication wont work for an intoxicated body. It is tough situation- I am sympathetic, but having seen two different cultures handle addiction, I cant say having a relaxed attitude within a community towards it makes things better. It makes thing worse, IMO.
By your argument as long as in the Suttas don’t specifically prohibit drugs, by name, then it doesn’t break a precept?
No that’s not what I said. To break the precept one must have the intention to take a substance which causes heedlessness (pamada), and it can’t be for a medicinal reason (ie its done recreationally or just to feel pleasure/hallucinate etc).
Note, other Buddhist traditions allow certain psychoactive substances in their rituals such as small amounts of grain alcohol, I’m mainly thinking of Tibetan Buddhists. Do they break the precept while doing this? They argue that they do not since it is done for tantric reasons. Clearly this is not in the EBTs but one could say they are using it in a controlled ritual setting and that perhaps this is allowable as a form of spiritual practice.
My point boils down to this: it is mostly about your intention, not so much about literal ingestion.
One thing that hasn’t come up here, but is worth thinking about, is the topic of internet censorship. We live in an age of increasing control of the internet, and many governments have taken it on themselves to control what can and can’t be said. Obviously this is a major issue in China and other dictatorial regimes, and with the apparently imminent repeal of net neutrality in the US, it will become an issue there as well.
Internet censorship is already, and will become increasingly so, a blunt instrument, relying on crawling sites and analyzing the content with neural nets, all outsourced to an opaque web of private and unaccountable corporations. The people who will be hit by it, as always, are the honest ones who are not trying to hide anything, while the crooks will trivially get around it.
Anyway, my point is that a discussion on drugs, regardless of how it is actually framed, is likely to get our forum on the radar of the Chinese govt. and other censorship organs. Now, personally, I think annoying the Chinese government is a delightful way to start a morning (你好政府官员!). Nevertheless, I think it’s worth reflecting on this.
Please know, I am not in any way suggesting that we censor our speech to conform with government repression. I am just saying we should be aware that what we regard as a honest and healthy discussion is likely to incur legal consequences in some places.
The heat of vaporization of psychoactive cannabis compounds is greater than that of water: here is a little chart. So, you aren’t vaporizing and inhaling anything intoxicating if you’re heating the cannabis up to 100 °C, the normal boiling point of water.
Rubbing the stuff on the skin is another story. But again, what’s described in that Vinaya passage is not enough to intoxicate someone.
Yes, but the factor of perception is not part of the fifth precept. Whether the individual thinks it causes heedlessness or not is irrelevant, or whether one thinks he or she was drinking water, is also irrelevant.
Out of the five factors (intention, perception, object, effort, and result), perception is not present:
For the precept to be vialated four factors are required: (1) the intoxicant [object]; (2) the intention of taking it [intention]; (3) the activity of ingesting it [effort]; and (4) the actual ingestion of the intoxicant [result].
— Bhikkhu Bodhi, Going for Refuge and Taking the Precepts
The thing is that, believing a substance does not cause heedlessness, or is used as a medicine when the purpose and intention is not for this, doesn’t change the breaking of the precept, nor the quality of the substance (substances are chemical/physical—if you were to force anyone to drink liquor, it would result in intoxication whether or not the person wants to or is even aware of having consumed it).
And it’s not about if it causes enormous amounts of heedlessness, such as harder drugs, or even milder drugs/alcohol—it’s any amount of heedlessness, including just having off-handed thoughts or inclinations to faint amounts of anger (due to the substance’s effects).
Whether the individual thinks it causes heedlessness or not is irrelevant, or whether one thinks he or she was drinking water, is also irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant to the biological process, yes but it is not irrelevant when it comes to Dhamma, which takes intentions as central to ethical concerns.
The thing is that, believing a substance does not cause heedlessness, or is used as a medicine when the purpose and intention is not for this, doesn’t change the breaking of the precept
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Clearly people can be confused about drugs and medicines and the line between them is often blurry, as with opiates. This is why an experienced healer or doctor is needed.
Its what most people have said here including me: intentional taking a drug or alcohol in a ritual, ceremony, or (fringe) psychological/quasi therapy, you would be breaking the 5th precept. It fits all the elements of what is described as breaking a precept. No confusion here.
And Shamanic ceremonies are quite the rage in the US at the moment, here’s something from another major publication:
Hardly fringe.
One could take a dogmatic uninformed position about these, but I do not think that is good for Buddhism or Dhamma.
If something is helpful for one’s physical and mental health, I don’t see why it would be banned by the fifth precept on principle.
Likewise, no-one would claim opiates as part of pain management as prescribed by a doctor would be banned, but its reckless or recreational use would be.
Have you reviewed your intention in publicly advocating drug and alcohol use as acceptable as long as the intention isn’t bad? What about your intention in publicly claiming it is not breaking a precept?
Worth considering.
I am well informed I believe. I own and operate a medical practice, my wife is also a practitioner-- a therapist. We’ve seen doctors and therapists in our area go to jail for unethical use of drugs in therapy, and severe damage to patients minds and lives by things like this under the rubric of medicine. You have to be very careful with what you are suggesting. There are serious consequences which you are likely not aware of…
You’re misrepresenting me and leaving out the part where I said it must be medicinal (which I have backed up with citations from the Vinaya). Also, do you disagree that one’s intention is a key factor in the ethical nature of an act? Because that is basic Buddhist ethics.
Also, calling into question my character doesn’t really hurt my arguments, since they are based on the Buddhists texts, and the words of Bhikkhu Bodhi and modern psychologists studying the medical uses of psychedelics.
Either way, my intention is not to let dogmatism or mistaken opinions get in the way of healing.
Javier I agree with your statement above. In particular the point about culture.
This is such a highly emotive subject…
Ultimately everybody is responsible for themselves. Karma comes to fruition and Karma is made. The Buddha was certainly not dogmatic. We don’t have Dhamma police
And just as a reminder… D&D forum doesn’t actually have a problem here… there is nothing to do, no issue to resolve.
