For those who would prefer, nay, demand to hear truth, only if positively framed (you know, “kindly” stated), here’s a funny example of teaching a similar lesson:
1 Like
Fully agree, but my point seems to have been missed; faujidoc1’s team aren’t “playing with anesthetics”. If little Johnny is lost miles from civilization in -30 °C conditions it’s not about “playing with fire”. There’s no “academic tap-dancing” for little Johnny - he’s far too cold for that.
I also agree with:
Renunciation is core to Buddhism as far as I can tell.
To keep it EBT, I’m turning to MN54 on sensual pleasures. There is the obvious “Dog with a bone” and “delightful parks, woods, meadows, and lotus ponds in a dream”. There’s also the coal pit. “Wouldn’t that person writhe and struggle to and fro?”. Keep writhing little Johnny, I do not condemn you as being a mere pleasure-seeker.
1 Like
Buddhist teachings are about “seeing things as they are.” The teachings are not about altering reality with intoxicants and enjoying that effect. “Seeing things as they are” is ultimately about experientially understanding the three characteristics of existence – i.e., experientially understanding things like the arising and ceasing nature of everything. These types of experiential understandings are difficult if one is under the influence of intoxicants.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone disputes that. The original article was about a group of people who seem to think that psychedelics are legitimate Buddha-Dhamma door and should be used by all and sundry. This is an attempt at the revival of a movement (60’s and 70’s) that lost its mojo due to harsh realities of life. This is a small step away from the position that those who are not partaking are “missing out” and “slowing down” their progress. That has all been attempted before and the “new science” of psychedelics is not going to make anyone immune from its deeply lasting effects.
These kinds of plants and materials have been known for thousands of years and people have had far more time and luxury to experiment with them than what we have currently because of our rigid schedules. I believe it is perfectly fine to use them to alleviate immediate danger or extreme physical or mental pain. The issue is the next bit of logic: because it shuts out external stimuli and/or pain it must be beneficial for meditation because that too requires seclusion from the external stimuli and calming of internally distressing states. It is this bit that I have a problem with because it is spurious logic and an attempt at a short cut with a lot of wishful thinking.
5 Likes
Yes, thank you for nudging it back.
…and doubly so when the stash runs out
1 Like
I had a friend who is one of those people who can’t meditate. He went on one, and had positive experiences. They were nothing I didn’t have meditating a lot on retreat. The overwhelming feeling of love and acceptance. The feeling of oneness. I’d rather not pay so much money to do a drug. I’d rather meditate. I’ve read Carlos Castaneda, and it didn’t appeal to me. My friend felt like he had good results, and I wish him well.
5 Likes
Unless you know exactly how to teach another being so that the Dhamma is taught exactly as they need, not as you think they need, it doesn’t seem like “tough love” as you espouse necessarily works as the immediate response to this thing. Having worked closely with these communities, I’d rely on my experience of seeing this side of human suffering and applying what I’ve seen works towards recovery for folks in this situation. It’s a balance of both. I’m done responding to you though Bhante and I’d appreciate it if you no longer responded to me either. 
EDIT: To frame it as a harm-reduction versus complete and immediate abstinence conversation around drug users, those who insist on tough love could be grouped under those who insist on immediate abstinence.
It’s not one or the other–based on what I’ve seen clinically and experientially successful recovery in drug use happens under both: harm-reduction leading to abstinence. Even those who go into an abstinence program tend to relapse multiple times as they finally get to complete abstinence. The suffering of the human mind around substances is so complex & it’s completely a disservice to anyone’s healing to insist on “tough love” when you don’t know the circumstances of another’s life–information that any good Dhamma teacher, imo, would benefit from to be able to teach effectively so the Dhamma can heal.
In the meantime, scientifically, tough stances alone do not work. It’s a mix of both–but definitely a leaning towards harm reduction is what’s best towards actual healing.
Drugs is such a vague term that I think in the context of this article it is useless. I say this as a member of the generation that participated in extensive field testing of these substances in the 60’s and 70’s. The article speaks specifically of LSD, MDMA, DMT, and Psilocybin. There is a world of difference between these drugs and say meth amphetamine or alcohol.
Most people have had the unpleasant experience of being around a mean drunk, probably fewer have spent time around someone cranked up on meth (scary). Take a look at MN 13 ( on the drawbacks of sensuality) and reflect on how such drugs can amplify these drawbacks in new and unexpected ways. Really, I think this is the main reason the Buddha frowned on the use of intoxicants – their role in creating let’s say unskillful actions. I don’t think he would have worried too much about people laughing for a few hours on mushrooms or taking a few minutes talking to machine elves (DMT). Speaking of which, a friend of mine who had been experimenting with DMT – on his latest trip (last year) - encountered a being that told him to stop taking DMT and start meditating – so he stopped – and started - true story.
To me, this article is describing a form of folk Buddhism. All cultures end up creating their own folk Buddhisms and this is one adapted to people who for the most part will already be inclined to experiment with these drugs. If they were trying to mix meditation with heroin or meth – ok, that’s nuts. But the drugs mentioned – yea, I think you could pull it off. No, you aren’t going to enter the jhanas but it sure would make a dry vipassana practice more interesting and based on the teachers named, this is probably what they are practicing.
A few comments on the drugs named: very low toxicity, no long term side effects, non-addictive, and not likely to be used on a regular basis.
So no worries in my opinion. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.
4 Likes
But we are intoxicated whether we like it or not, because our bodies are like a huge chemical plant, and all you experience with this mind and body produce different effects and altered states of mind.
I like to say that one has to go out of one’s mind to find one’s true mind. And for some, it’s possible to do it in a controlled and somehow safe way, and others need something else, and too much controlling will get you nowhere at all.
Not so for tamed mind. I’m sorry to say this. But I needed to 2020 do because life brought me there. I’m for years a meditator. Here is my opinion. At moment of usage the mind can one show you not being in control of the talks of the mind. It can deeper into to “resolve” the dreams you think in your mind is your past dreams. It can let you understand that black implies white. I saw all the things I used to see as bad. As trying to give me a lesson. Well there was more but I still didn’t like that after it comes the selfishness. So yeah it’s dobbel sword. So I got my help in the end. I’m more free from my cptsd trauma that stroke caused. I opened at first to think what Buddha said that certain things is allowed for healing. If you think good we all need healing. Which it’s good at. For trauma. But I don’t believe in longterm use of the same substance.
Part of the problem with this topic most of the times I see it brought up is lack of consensus about what we’re actually talking about. The article posted in the OP is only about psychedelics, but the conversation quickly broadened to lump together many kinds of substances. To use a word like “drugs” is to conflate many different kinds of powerful substances. Psychedelics affect conscious experience for a short time, so do opioids, stimulants, depressants, SSRIs, etc. (So does music and movies, for that matter. So does all sensory contact.) I think it’s important to be clear what we’re talking about, since these are all very different things.
There’s no way to universally and cross-culturally define what should be included or omitted from the 5th precept. The heart of the precept is to avoid that which causes heedlessness, and the only substance mentioned literally is drink. So it’s on us to interpret that guideline for a pharmacologically-rich contemporary era.
I choose to focus on the ethical causation component—Does this substance cause heedlessness?—because what substance it’s talking about is too vague to be useful now. Coffee, chocolate, and sugar are drugs by any logical definition: they affect mood and energy for a short time, and can cause heedlessness! So do many kinds of food, and so technically drugs are just a powerful subset of nutriment.
There are many contexts where strong substances are useful for healing and spiritual progress, which is just another way to say healing. If someone says that SSRIs stabilize their mind states and help them find calm and clarity, even samādhi, there’s no good Buddhist argument against that without drawing arbitrary lines between types of substances.
The same can be said of anti-anxiety use of cannabis, anti-depressive use of ketamine, relational therapeutic use of MDMA, or existential therapeutic use of psychedelics. None of these are known for causing heedlessness in the way that alcohol does, though they are strong, and always want to be done in appropriate containers (called “set and setting” in psychedelic therapy discourse) precisely to minimize risk. I do the same with sugar and screen time for my 6 year old, taking care with his use of these powerful stimulants in order to protect him, us, his bedtime, and more from the heedlessness that follows their use.
Watch out for absolutism, which will always have logical holes in it. If one accepts that medicinal use of strong substances is sometimes appropriate for healing, and if you don’t default to the authoritarian thinking that only external experts are qualified to prescribe healing substances, then there’s space for a non-judgmental conversation about what kinds of nutriment might be supportive for different kinds of traumas and the hindrances that are the symptoms of trauma.
8 Likes
And speaking of parenting,
With respect, Ven. @Subharo, I think your examples are projections. You’re assuming “does no recreational drugs” and “is emotionally available” are in a correlative relationship with each other, but they’re not. Of course the preferable parenting for a young child is one that has strong emotional attunement and availability. What matters is a parent’s ability to be attuned and available, not the methods they use to get there, as long as they’re not harming anyone. I know many parents who feel that they are more emotionally available when they’ve dealt skillfully with their anxiety and stress, including through cannabis use, as a common example, but also through skillful late-night partying.
Parenting is so stressful and relentless that I think it’s most compassionate to have an “by all means necessary” approach to it. Of course this still means maintaining the precepts, if a parent has taken them, but I don’t think it’s useful to condemn someone else’s medicine unless you know them and their situation quite intimately.
5 Likes
What we are intoxicated by are: greed, hatred and ignorance. This is what we need to overcome through training (i.e., calming the mind and understanding the mind). Also, research shows that it is our mental states that continuously bring about changes in the brain (this is called neuroplasticity). So, when you add external substances/chemicals – you only make a mess and create chaos. Also, taking substances involves breaking the fifth precept in Buddhism. Further, your idea of mind seems to be different from Buddha’s explanations: according to Buddhist teachings there are six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness. The teachings are about making sense of these (seeing the three characteristics, etc.).
This is all very interesting, but I think the forest is obscuring the trees (or vice versa 
)
There are many ways of alleviating our own and other people’s suffering, and of teaching them how to alleviate their own suffering. The Buddha speaks about this CONSTANTLY, and it’s called Sila.
Kindness is ‘being a friend to both oneself and others’. Why not focus on the amazing, wonderful and transformative powers of kindness. If it is taken far enough, this is what leads to those states of universal love and compassion - all the Brahmaviharas. If taken only to a small degree it still leads to a sense of no remorse and ease, of feelings of connectedness, of life being worthwhile, and is a fantastic antidote to all kinds of pain.
In certain specific circumstances, chemical assistance has its place - but as far as I’m concerned this is the minority of cases. IMO focusing on this as a preferred means or a ‘good’ choice is simply wrong attention. There are more beneficial places to place Attention and Effort. It might be considered as a last resort…
In my experience teaching people, and letting them see what a difference consciously using kindness makes in their lives has pretty immediate results… actually if I really think hard, I can’t remember an single instance where this did not work! Even if it is at the most basic level of getting someone to hold a little puppy or kitten in their lap for a while. (this is a technique I used to use way-back when I was working in Child Protection with child sex offenders).
One of the things that I have found really helps people is to take the focus off their own afflictions and focus on others - the experience of volunteering for example is known to increase both a sense of well being as well as having health benefits… These are examples of skillful means that lead to the arising of positive states - and to their maintenance… It is about long term, sustainable change… But it’s neither as easy nor as ‘interesting’ as some exotic mind altering substance rituals.
What I take from all of this is that the Buddha really did know what he was talking about.
Try it, be creative. Don’t dismiss the basic training - it in itself is a treasure - no need for exalted states - Nibbana or exotic samadhi… kindness and contentment are incredible gifts and the antidote to much of the suffering that we all experience… Imagine if 50% of the worlds population had this approach? WOW how incredibly wonderful would that be… 
The world would be less full of pain
May all Beings find skillful ways of decreasing suffering and increasing kindfulness 
10 Likes
What a wonderful post, Viveka. Thank you.
1 Like
I, for one, would prefer the parents who do no recreational drugs (even better, keep all 5 precepts), all other things being equal. You, on the other hand, may prefer the parents who do drugs, but regulate their use very wisely. I leave you to your choices and views. Who am I to condemn you?
My example left the choice to the reader. So I like to think that serves to demonstrate that I’m not judgmental in that way, much less “projecting”.
It was a thought exercise, not a categorical condemnation. This thought exercise perhaps was not to your satisfaction, in its formulation. Noted.
I didn’t say that no balanced area in between my two choices could theroetically exist. I just rhetorically asked which of two choices would be preferable. Then further noted that finding a balanced area between the two choices is, in practice, deceptively difficult to find (and further noting that the stakes can be quite high).
So chill out, people. Your defensiveness, when prodded, is telling.
Thanks for your clear response. I think this is the key here. There’s assumptions and projections around substance use that’s equated with being virtuous–but it’s very possible for one who only keeps the 5th precept to also be the kind of person who engages in harsh and accusatory speech/gaslighting, or a person who takes which is not given, or a person who commits sexual misconduct, or even engages in taking the life of living beings.
I think too it’s telling especially from American folks how the DARE program probably has such a strong holdover that these correlations towards “drug use” = “bad/not virtuous” are taken as unshakeable truths. Or how much of the narrative I’m seeing here is “well they shouldn’t be using drugs at all and should be doing XYZ instead,” really using that “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” narrative so common in American culture. It helps to remind ourselves that the Buddha-Sasana wouldn’t exist if not for a community of people–it is easier for many others to keep the precepts when around others who keep it. It is easiest to keep the five precepts when around others who keep it while not judging you harshly when you are trying to maintain the precepts.
Of course it’s good to keep the 5th precept and frankly it’s easier to do all the other four when also keeping the 5th, but repeatedly it’s seen that harsh judgment on those who use substances further influences a self-spiral of shame that leads them to using again and again whereas when users are in supportive environments that both encourage sobriety while not being harsh about relapse gets them to full abstinence (keeping the 5th precept) for longer and even permanently.
It’s important to note of course, that those who do not see the danger in using substances are a different story and cannot be associated with if you want to keep your precepts, but it still doesn’t serve them or you to harshly judge them–a simple unthinking word can send someone into a shame spiral that worsens their drug use.
TL;DR:
- Not everyone who does drugs is bad. Someone can keep the 5th precept and kill, steal, lie/say harsh speech, and do sexual misconduct regularly.
- It’s very American (and a projection) to say “you should just not do drugs” without looking at the data around substance abuse recovery
- Not using intoxicants that lead to heedlessness is good but judging those who do contributes to their not seeing the danger in intoxicants and may send them into shame-spirals that further their use. There are other skillful ways to wake others up without aversion.
3 Likes
The Onion can be funny sometimes:
“Hospital Unveils New Delivery Taprooms For Bonding With Newborn Over Couple Beers”:
1 Like
I don’t think it does. Your thought exercise created a false binary. In both your elder and parenting examples you offered two extremes, one unambiguously healthy and the other unambiguously unhealthy. This is a straw man argument—obviously the misattuned, strung out parent or the weed-addled old stoner are undesirable archetypes. The question as you framed it suggests a direct correlation of drug use to poor mental and emotional health, a view unsupported by neither the scientific literature nor the direct experience of many people. They’re simply not as connected as you’re making them out to be.
Part of the challenge here is in a term like “recreational drugs.” One person’s recreation is another person’s medicine, both in other-prescribed and self-prescribed forms. Without a substantive Buddhist inquiry around the difference between “recreational” and “medicinal” substance use, the 5th precept is going to be a purely subjective practice.
I don’t think so. Lots of people manage balanced, healthy lives that include and are supported by various forms of medication.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s one way to put it. But I’m not so sure one has to calm the mind, because the nature of the mind is to be active, so if one’s try to calm it, it strikes back and becomes more agitated. But I guess we both speak about the same thing, and it’s just differences in semantics.
There are so many researches gone and going on, and some of them can bring greater clarity and some might delude us if we take them to be the truth. A researcher takes on a small bit of reality, breaks it into parts, measures and classifies them - see how they work together, and then draw conclusions. But if the conclusion is a form of proof of how the whole is or isn’t, then it most surely is the wrong conclusion.
There are chemicals that are toxic to our bodies, and there are external substances/chemicals that aren’t, and those I like to talk about is also found in our body and is produced by our bodies, and those can’t be said to be external. But of course, if one adds too much, it can be harmful, - one can die of drinking too much water.
Refrain from taking substances that cloud the mind, but it doesn’t say don’t take substances that make the mind brighter. We give our monastics chocolate because it’s considered a medicine. Chocolate also strengthens our endocannabinoid system, the body’s own “cannabis system” if you like.
Who knows? I think it’s you who have a problem making my ideas fit with your understanding of Buddha’s teachings. There are all of these consciousnesses arising in knowing and knowing doesn’t arise or cease, or at least my knowing behaves like that. And if it wasn’t so, how could one escape this mess? Could one sankhara know another sankhara, - one thought knowing another thought, or one feeling feel another feeling?
1 Like