Well, you have taken the time to respond rationally to my arguments, so I thank you for that. It looks like we’re not going to convince each other, so i’ll leave it at that.
But it is for me, in any case, a somewhat unexpected outcome of this thread that I have become convinced that only alcohol should be treated directly under the 5th precept, so I thank everyone for their contributions.
The 5 precepts don’t have detailed conditions and origin stories in the EBTs. The closest thing to the relevant rule for monks, bearing in mind that this going to be stricter than the lay people’s precept.
Bhante, would it be inaccurate to interpret that a key reason the 5th precept was formulated the way it was is that such alcoholic drinks were the “drug of choice” of the people around the Buddha back them?
If we follow this line we could acknowledge that being the Buddha not omniscient he promoted such precepts in line with the needs of his time.
Hence, given that the current mode use of marijuana seems to have not been widespread back then he did not have a chance to have a say and/or formulate (or not) a precept around it.
Another point I would like to make is that a North Indian once told me that Jains nowadays are well known for being heavy drinkers. Non-jains usually joke that while they are so strict about meat, roots, garlic etc they see no harm at all in drinking until passing out. Has anyone ever heard or seen anything similar about contemporary jains? Is it possible this was the case already back in Buddha’s days?
Thank you Bhante.
Actually this conversation is not to convince anything to you.
I have no doubt and I have faith on you that you do not take any substance.
This is benefit for others as I do not take any substance either.
Now I have another question.
Is there any precepts which prohibit using drugs?
If by that you mean the interpretation I gave of the 5th precept being against heedless drunkenness rather than alcohol as such, I should point out that I do not hold the view that I proposed. I have merely not yet heard any solid refutation of it. So I hold it as a possibility, along with the commonly accepted interpretation as another possibility - I can’t say I am yet convinced by either. I’m not at all expert in Pāli so I did my best but can’t fully judge for myself, which is why I have been trying to find people to refute it clearly! So far no luck. When Alex Wynne said it seems more correct than the usual interpretation gramattically, I thought it worth pursuing further.
But I understand if you don’t want to discuss it any more. I have enjoyed and learned from this discussion already, as I do most here on Suttacentral! Thank you
There’s a podcast episode of Buddhist Geeks (actually 3 of them) that speak about psychedelics and Buddhism. He interviews a researcher who did something similar to this and he mentions one instance where he did give a high dose to a zen master. After the first hour they asked how he was doing (he had never done drugs before, of any form) and he responded that it was definitely intense, and a different kind of experience than he had ever had, but that he didn’t really see any benefit or anyway it could be used as a tool. Another hour passed and the zen master hadn’t said anything in a while so they checked in with him to make sure he was okay. The master didn’t say anything at first and then looked at them and replied “Oh, I get it now, it’s all about metta.” Apparently he had a profound experience of metta, unlike he had ever had before, and to the point that it radically changed the way he taught metta to his students from then on. So I am not either side of the fence here, but you can take that story as you will. I definitely recommend listening to the 3 interviews from Buddhist Geeks though, very interesting and informative.
Generally angry people mellow down when they take alcohol.
They become friendly and fun to deal with.
But when they become sober they become worse.
Perhaps this could use as a tool to a person who does not understand what Metta means.
When we practice Metta, the happiness you receive is much greater than the relax mind you have with alcohol.
It last much longer without side effects.
Right… but there is a huge difference between alcohol and psychedelics. The precept talks about intoxicants that cause heedlessness. At least for me, the experiences I’ve had with psylocybin and LSD did not result in heedlessness. In fact they were what, in a way, led me to the path. I had an intense experience regarding a contemplation of the phrase “the map is not the territory.” That experience was not a heedless one. I would never recommend someone start taking psychedelics all the time; but for someone who might need some assistance in cultivating some form of eleutheromania, or someone who may have buddhist’s block, I would understand if they took a dose to overcome it, especially if they already had a solid establishment of sati in their daily life.
