From my experience of smoking tobacco products, it can have mild intoxicating effects at first. Mostly a light-headed/buzzed feeling (nothing at all like the intoxicating effects of alcohol; there is no loss of equilibrium, stumbling, inability to drive a car, slurred speech, etc). After a short time, this stopped happening, and it became nothing more than a mild stimulant, similar to caffeine.
2 Likes
Marijuana was certainly smoked by people for many thousands of years. Some people say that those serious about devotion never smoke it, because it is also addictive, mind altering, and when one has responsibilities can be a great hindrance. You are right, during Buddha’s time people smoked ganja, as an intoxicant we both know Buddha prohibited it for monastics. However, how often is ganja mentioned by name in the Pali Suttas?
Doesn’t seem to be based on a search. I wonder if there is any kind of direct mention of it.
I’m not a Vinaya expert by any means, but this does not seem totally correct in my opinion. Please correct me if I’m wrong:
Pli Tv Kd 6 is totally dedicated to instances of sickness, and the allowance for “inhaling smoke” comes after the monk Pilindavaccha had a “headache”, and only after “oil” and “treatment through the nose” were not effective.
I don’t see how this translates into being able to smoke whenever one wants for no or little reason.
Unless these monks suffer from massive headaches that don’t go away by any other means I don’t see a justification for smoking cigarettes, whether occasionally or habitually.
I don’t like to point fingers specifically, but on YouTube you will find videos of monks smoking during dhamma talks etc…
And if it’s such an insignificant thing (two or three a day), why not give it up entirely (MN 66), especially considering the now known health risks, the example it sets and the criticism by much of the lay community?
The fact that these monks insist on justifying their habits and don’t quit even when criticized but instead blame it on “cultural differences” is just a sign of strong attachment in my opinion.
And I think I can’t be blamed for not trusting a monk behaving this way to teach me anything of value about my own tendencies and cravings.
Do you think the Buddha in this situation would say: “Oh just let the poor monk have his couple of cigarettes a day”?
I might be wrong, but I don’t think so. 
1 Like
Yes, you are wrong. If there are no conditions put on an allowance, then there are no conditions. It’s not that complicated.
Of course feel free to believe whatever you want, judge whoever you want, etc, etc.
2 Likes
This is not a sympathetic reading of the Vinaya in my opinion.
Again, Pli Tv Kd 6 is about medicines. It’s called “Bhesajjakkhandhaka” for this reason.
This is the first thing to consider when reading the rules listed there.
If you read the rules carefully you will notice that the specification to use them only when one is sick is mentioned only for those rules where there is an allowance for storage of those medicines.
If storage is not allowed, then there is no reason to specify that one is allowed to use them only when sick.
Except for the rule “If you’re not sick, I allow detergent, soap, and cleaning agents.” where the Buddha introduces a specific allowance for one one is not sick.
So, it seems to me, the case is exactly the opposite of what you claim, namely that the rules don’t apply only to sick monks only when specified.
For smoking, one is not even allowed to store the tobacco (or whatever is smoked), let alone use it when not sick!
According to your reasoning, then a monk is allowed to do bloodletting and surgery, to drink urine and feces whenever they want without reason.
And they are allowed to eat congee, mung-bean broth and meat broth (and many others) anytime of the day without reason just because the rule doesn’t specify that it’s forbidden after midday.
That’s why we have the origin story for these rules, to come to a sympathetic reading by putting them into context.
I’m sorry but if the lay community didn’t criticize the monks when they thought they were transgressing, the Buddha wouldn’t have laid down a huge number of rules in the Vinaya.
So you seem to accuse me of some inappropriate behavior for no real reason.
And I’m yet to find an instance when the Buddha didn’t side with the lay community and instead “defended” the monks for indulging.
I think that a nicotine addiction can take up a large portion of someone’s life. Also, the smoke inhalation inhibits the healthy breathing process at times, and it can even cause the unwholesome attribute of serious disease. However, through all this the practitioner can see even a more dire need of Awakening, and their own limits can be seen in a clearer sense when they are being tested, and withdrawn. So if the practitioner notices in their craving for a cigarette that very thing that Buddha teaches them about, that desire is causing their suffering, they can even in the moment of smoking a cigarette realize that the futility of harmful behavior, and the dire need to do away with material absorption in the senses. Someone can give up this habit of cigarette smoking and seriously turn to a cleaner Buddhist practice, because it is a test, and if you pass it, eventually, eventually, you will reach Nirvana going down the correct Path. And that is the end of suffering. It is that important. Don’t let that put you off.
For someone who has admitted to not being an expert at Vinaya, you seem very confident.
Origin stories are helpful to understand the situation where the rule is laid down. But without something being stated in the rule or the definition section of the rule, it is not part of the rule. Once you start adding in your own factors, there is no end to the ways one could change things. And in particular with regard to origin stories, it could lead to very narrow interpretations of the rule when there should not be.
Furthermore, the fact that the Buddha did specify that some things could only be done when sick shows that this was a known legal point. Therefore when something is not specified as being allowed only when sick, we can be confident the factor is not there.
Tobacco would be classed as a lifetime medicine, so there is no problem with storing it. Not sure why you think they can’t store it. It’s even possible that it wouldn’t even be classed as a lifetime medicine since it is not swallowed, the usual factor for something to be considered an edible and therefore requiring that it be offered.
Of course. Those are the situation that were recorded. One major flaw in reasoning is that the only things that happened in the time of the Buddha were the things recorded in the Suttas and Vinaya. According to the way the texts are written, we know about the lay people’s complaints because the Buddha agreed and called the monks together. It’s not surprising that he didn’t call the monks together and announce, “Ok, so and so came to me and complained about something, but they were wrong and you can keep on doing whatever it was that they complained about.”
Mmm… I said you were free to judge whoever you want. That is the prerogative of being a lay person. You get to support whomever you like. But keep in mind, its probably no secret the monks who are smoking and it’s very likely that the lay people who offer cigs have no problem with it. So they aren’t complaining.
2 Likes
According to what Buddha said in the Kalama sutta, I would say that smoking tobacco is unskillful behavior:
Please, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned contemplation, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after consideration, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering”, then you should give them up.’
Smoking tobacco can lead to harm and suffering for both the self and others. It can lead to mouth/throat/lung cancer. It can lead to emphysema. It can lead to death. It can lead to addiction and craving. It can harm others through second hand smoke.
According to the World Health Organization:
- Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
- Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 1.2 million are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.
Even as a smoker I found it offensive when someone blew a puff of smoke in my face, even when carried by the wind. I tried to be particularly mindful of the direction the wind was blowing whenever I smoked around other people.
Even being mindful of the wind, it would still occasionally happen, and I know for myself that smoking is unskillful behavior. Smoking is blameworthy. Smoking is criticized by sensible people. Smoking leads to harm and suffering. This checks all the boxes of unskillful behavior as defined in the Kalama sutta.
The Kalama sutta goes on to describe skillful behavior, so we should check this as well:
…when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness’, then you should acquire them and keep them.
Is smoking tobacco skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and lead to welfare and happiness? I would say no, but YMMV.
Perhaps if tobacco was used as a medicine it could qualify as leading to welfare and happiness, but I am not aware of any current medicinal uses of smoking tobacco. I hear it makes a great pesticide for the garden, but that is typically in the form of tobacco water, not smoke.
1 Like
Personally, I don’t believe the reason a huge amount of time and energy was spent in order to memorize, recite, pass down and eventually write down, transcribe and translate the huge amount of origin stories in the Vinaya was just for mere curiosity.
I’m simply reading what’s been passed down in its totality to hopefully come to the correct interpretation.
Please provide an example so I can learn.
I believe you are talking about the forbiddance rules in the Vibangha.
These are forbiddances not allowances. For forbiddance exceptions are listed (for example, if one is sick).
But an allowance is already an exception. There is no need to clarify by reiterating the forbiddance.
The fact that these rules are about medicines, and are allowances (i.e. exception to a forbiddance) should already make it clear that one is not allowed any of this when they are not sick (i.e. when they don’t need medicine), unless specified as in the rule I mentioned.
Even if that were true (which would be highly controversial to say the least), one should not use it without a medical reason.
So it would still not justify smoking cigarettes for no reason, or just because they are donated.
All the more reason not to use it.
These texts are an incredibly extensive record. I agree they cannot possibly record everything that happened, but to not mention even a single case of this happening is worthy of at least some minor consideration.
Obviously the people who donate the cigarettes are not the ones who are complaining.
Smoking tabacco is not currently used as medicine in the west in part just because our default is to extract active ingredients and put them in inert media (eg medicinal caffeine will be given in pills). This is particularly sensible in this case when the natural form contains many carcinogenic compounds. Nicotine however is medicinally prescribed for certain conditions (e.g Parkinsons), is a verified performance enhancing drug for many activities (it increases alertness, focus, and steadies the hand), and self-directed use for mild everyday conditions like appetite suppression.
I, like everyone else, can’t help but have my individual judgment about what others should and shouldn’t do, and would probably recommend every smoker quit. But if your goal is to get by on one meal, not get much sleep, sit still, and focus the mind for long lengths of time, nicotine is actually very well suited for that, just like caffeine. And cigarettes are much more available than patches or gum. Especially historically.
2 Likes
This is not true. The Vinaya is full of things that the Buddha allowed where it is not done in light of a previous forbidding. Did you read even just the section around the smoking thing? Do you think that lids for boxes were somewhere forbidden and that’s why the Buddha allowed a lid? Or a shoulder strap?
I’m not interested in discussing this with you any more since there seems to be so much you misunderstand about the Vinaya, both as it is written and as it is practiced. The Vinaya is not something that can be “armchaired” by lay people. Even a monastic that just reads it on their own is unlikely to come to sound conclusions.
1 Like
To me, smoking seems like something that should be avoided:
Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild ox, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, thorny ground, a pit, a cliff, a swamp, and a sewer. (MN2)
Seems like it’s smart to just avoid a habit that greatly increases your risk of lung cancer and other diseases.
3 Likes
It seems to me these are all exceptions to the rules about the basic requisites of the monks. The monks are (rightly) afraid of wrong conduct (as we read extensively in the Vinaya and Suttas) about using unallowable items and adorning them inappropriately, so the Buddha is forced to give an official allowance for things like lids, shoulder straps etc… so they are free to use them without fear of wrongdoing.
I really don’t understand your annoyance. Especially after I asked you to help me understand things better. So unfortunately, I agree, there is no reason to continue.
The thing with smoking is that it ‘has it’s place’. Generally, addiction is not an issue without money to corrupt availability. Experienced tyrants enjoy it as a social engineering tactic to make homelessness so untenable that people will accept servitude to avoid it.
Regularly smoking tobacco is waaaaaaaaaaay worse for your health than light to moderate alcohol consumption (or marijuana, for that matter). I cannot in good conscience condone the former while discouraging the latter.
I like this interpretation. Using tobacco is self-mortification. Don’t do it.
UPDATE: I’d also point out suttas like MN 85, which lists good health as one of five factors that support meditation, as well as AN 5.54, which lists bad health as one of five bad conditions for practice.
2 Likes
Watch out meditators; some studies suggest extended periods of sitting are just as bad as smoking, if not worse. Gasp!
A study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that those who sit – for example watching TV – for an hour reduce their lifespan by 22 minutes, whereas smokers shorten their lives by 11 minutes on average per cigarette. One study in Diabetologia, the journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, confirmed the danger by comparing those who spent the most time sitting versus those who sat the least. Those who sat the most faced a 112 percent increase in diabetes, a 147 percent increase in death from cardiovascular events, a 90 percent increase in death from cardiovascular causes, and a 49 percent increase in death from all causes.
Sitting has also been linked to obesity, backache, dementia, and muscle degeneration. In the UK, the Trades Union Congress estimates that back pain costs businesses £5 billion per year in employee absenteeism.
Some studies have found excessive sitting to be so widespread, and to have such a negative impact on health, that comparisons with smoking are becoming increasingly common.
https://theonebrief.com/sitting-vs-smoking-whats-the-scale-of-the-risk/
Ajahn Brahm told me that Ajahn Chah used to smoke quite a lot but gave it up not because of any health reasons, but rather because he found out cigarettes were being used as a kind of hard currency among the monks 
so he wanted to set a good example. When I was in Thailand, it seemed that the new currency system was those little 3 -in-1 sachets of coffee/creamer/sugar. Given that the creamer is often regarded as carcinogenic and sugar and caffeine are somewhat addictive, this may not have been much of an improvement!
Renunciation is hard. Giving up one particular thing is easier for some than it is for others. M66—the simile of the quail and the snare is a good one to read. Different people will struggle with different defilements, some will struggle with indulging in long hot showers, others will struggle with sweets, or wanting a certain toothpaste, all greedy types of things. Others will struggle with anger and hatred. They will be mean and hurtful, judge people with excessive harshness, and indulge in pious put-downs. They wont let go of an argument or their views, and always want to to be right, to teach their opponent a lesson! Then there’s ignorance which we all hold on to… not even knowing what we don’t know!
You might see these things in your own life? It also comes out somewhere in monastics. Because we are still human and still struggling with defilements. So, maybe we can all ask ourselves: what am I hiding from myself? What secret little addictions do I have? What would I find really difficult to live without? What are my own peccadillos? What are the things that I push to the corner of my mind and hope that no-one will find out about me?
Yes! Renunciation is HARD. For monastics, living on the faith and kindness of others, it is beautiful, but can sometimes feel like you are a piece of public property. We are scrutinised at every turn. Everyone knows what you do, your supporters know all the things about you (what medication you take, food allergies, etc), they know your schedule, your weaknesses and strengths. They want you to be perfect! We try… It’s not always easy living under such judgement. People gossip, they misunderstand rules, they want things done their way, they make demands…
Sometimes supporters and strangers on the internet can feel like they have a proprietary attitude, not just with the local sangha they interact with, but towards all monastics. Yes, it’s important that the lay community hold the sangha to high standards, but it’s also important (if we really want to make progress on OUR spiritual path) to look closely at our own lives before casting too harsh a judgement. It’s very easy to sit on the sidelines and say do this or that, be like this… without having any experience of monastic life and it’s much easier to do that than work on ourselves. I say this in response to more general criticisms people make. I’m not suggesting the sangha take up smoking but I have to say I was surprised at the level of investment some folks had in this thread and the amount of judgement expressed towards people we don’t even know anything about! Careful to not let the conceit of superiority take over your mind! That will harm you and others, just like any cigarette would but in your mind. It’s no wonder smokers think of themselves as pariahs. They certainly seem to be a popular target. What group among us might be next? Tea drinkers??
Some of the nicest people I know smoke or used to smoke. They are good people! Being a non-smoker doesn’t bestow any extra kindness, wisdom or spiritual power. You can be a non-smoker and still be pretty annoying, still attached to all sorts of other things, and do things that harm your own health and others. I think these days in many western countries, there are probably more Buddhists who drink than smoke. It’s actually quite common!
You might even think about the things in your own life that you are soooo attached to that they have stopped you from renouncing the world and taking up the monastic path!! 
22 Likes
Sitting and watching TV, and sitting in Meditation, connecting to Realization are quite different things. It’s not a fair study to catalog the effects of sitting in Meditation, but rather the other kinds of “sitting around” which can amount to “doing nothing”, while Meditation is a factor in saving one’s life from suffering and the Saha world, to open up the most important Wisdom of the Buddha that Gautama has offered us. Don’t take it so in stride 
.
Absolutely! But it’s also the case that you could say the same thing about drinkers (they are often nice people, kinder than non-drinkers, etc.). All I want is for smoking and drinking to be treated the same, precept-wise. It’s ludicrous to say someone can fry their lungs with cigarettes but not have a drink with dinner (as some literalists, like Ajahn Geoff, seem to be suggesting). Maybe the answer is to be more tolerant across the board rather than more judgmental.
1 Like
Thank you for your post Venerable. I will certainly try to apply your pointers in my life.
I wish to clarify that my personal criticism is not merely directed to the issue of smoking per se.
What I find quite unsettling is when monastics who are regarded as high authorities, when asked about it, are seen vehemently defending their “right” to smoke by bringing up all sorts of dubious arguments, which go way beyond mere Vinaya allowances and try to encompass various other aspects of the Dhamma, like for example the issue of whether Arahants could smoke habitually.
This to me is a problem as the conversation now shifts from simply monastic conduct to a doctrinal issue that has implications on how we interpret major topics like Dependent Origination.
All in the name of defending a habit, when it is exactly these figures who are entrusted to be setting an example for the faithful on how to let go of desires.
This kind of insistence I find troubling and quite puzzling, that’s it.
So I’d like to apologize if some of my posts seemed to convey harsh criticism for the mere reason of smoking a few cigarettes according to one’s own community’s Vinaya interpretation.
Even though I have my doubts and see inconsistencies in the interpretation presented, of course I would not sound so harsh if the issue were regarding mere conduct. I have many friends who are heavy smokers and I don’t at all categorize or judge them for it, I have no problems accommodating their habit even if it means staying out in the cold to keep them company while they smoke, choosing appropriate locales and similar things.
3 Likes