Before I start I should come clean and tell you that apart from a Dharma pracitioner I am also a trained drug and alcohol dependence counsellor, what that means is that I have heard every single attempt at validation that exists. Actually not every single one, because it is amazing at what people can come up with in order to defend their compulsive use of substances, but the theme is always the same.
I am not concerned about it. I don't recall ever mentioning that... I have a healthy and normal relationship with consciousness-alteration and the means whereby this is achieved. At least I'd like to think so. This post was initially an introduction, although a mod/admin/whatever moved it here and renamed the thread, so this may be a source of some confusion.
If you were not concerned then you would not present it as an issue, you would talk about the problems you are having with athletes foot now that it's early summer or the fact that you love the colours of the autumn sky after the rain...
I don't understand why you'd lash out and call my comments "piss weak" or sarcastically ask me if I'm a "Peruvian shaman" when I clearly have no affiliations with the Urarina or any other huasca tribe, and I frankly find such statements sort of rude.
I didn't lash out, it's just my way of expressing myself. Why would I lash out? I have nothing to win or lose in this discussion.
I was serious about the Peruvian shaman issue, I know a few people practicing South American shamanism that are not South American (I practice Tibetan Vajrayana and I am not Tibetan). Your comments though were an extremely tepid (is that better
) and transparent attempt attempt to justify using alcohol and drugs recreationally based on the fact that Peruvian shaman use specific drugs in religious ritual contexts.
What exactly am I supposed to be "working" on? I meditate and I smoke marijuana. It's simple. That's my choice. One day I may stop one or the other.
So do it. Why bring it up though if it was not an issue for you?
Why is enlightenment restricted to one practice or one action or one state of consciousness when, in reality, emptiness is inherent in all states of mind... though through zazen I'm sure it is much more of a direct experience than through psychedelics. I'm not saying that I plan to become enlightened through being stoned... that seems against the grain... just that if, as the koans suggest, Chiyono attained enlightenment just by seeing a pail break, who is to say that enlightenment is restricted to such rigid circumstances?
Nobody. If you have realised emptiness and stabilised the experience then anything is possible. BUT, has it ever occured to you that the reason all those masters attained enlightenment as a consequence of "irrelevant" phenomena was due to their previous effort over lifetimes and the correct combination of causes and conditions? Now unless you are another one of those non-Buddhist Zennies then I imagine you would be aware of karma and dependent origination so the idea that it was just luck that lead to their enlightenment would not have crossed your mind.
In speaking from a cultural and historical context, the Buddha had no knowledge of -- or simply didn't mention -- psychedelics. I don't think we could know his beliefs about them, if he ever were to encounter them. This is all very speculative.
And yet the fifth precept exists and has also been translated/interpreted as referring to intoxicants.
No, I am not a shaman. But this doesn't diminish the effects that psychedelics have on the mind and their capacity to allow us to venture into (ostensibly) different interior dimensions and attain a greater understanding of the universe therein.
You are still trying to justify your recreational use? You don't have to you know? If you want to smoke and drink it is 100% up to you.
In Tokyo in the Meiji era there lived two prominent teachers of opposite characteristics. One, Unsho, an instructor in Shingon, kept Buddha's precepts scrupulously. He never drank intoxicants, nor did he eat after eleven o'clock in the morning. The other teacher, Tanzan, a professor of philosophy at the Imperial University, never observed the precepts. Whenever he felt like eating, he ate, and when he felt like sleeping in the daytime he slept.
One day Unsho visited Tanzan, who was drinking wine at the time, not even a drop of which is suppposed to touch the tongue of a Buddhist.
"Hello, brother," Tanzan greeted him. "Won't you have a drink?"
"I never drink!" exclaimed Unsho solemnly.
"One who does not drink is not even human," said Tanzan.
"Do you mean to call me inhuman just because I do not indulge in intoxicating liquids!" exclaimed Unsho in anger. "Then if I am not human, what am I?"
"A Buddha," answered Tanzan.
Yes, except that the "moral" of the specific story is the fact that every being possesses Tathagatagarbha, not that you need to drink to realise Tathagatagarbha.
I don't presume to know the mind of anyone else, first of all. Secondly, no, I'm not that great of a poet and I'm certainly not as versed in Zen as he was. Thirdly, where in the Buddha-dharma is anyone restricted from "getting away" with anything? Why do I need license from someone else concerning my state of mind -- or whether it is "enlightened" or not -- in order to smoke weed maybe once a month as I currently do? I don't think my brain is turning to mush. I don't want to be a teetotaler because, yeah, I believe in the middle way, and I also realize that what the Buddha taught wasn't "do this or else you'll never be enlightened like me and escape suffering, hahaha!" but rather "hey, listen, I have a really good suggestion and if you want to give it a try. You don't have to be prefect at it, but I think if you give it a shot and genuinely try it it may help you to have a happier life at the end of the day."
1. Quite obviously your friend Ikkyu was realised. Doesn't take a mind reader to see that. 2. By "getting away with it" I meant that his realisation was such that his actions no longer generated karmic residue. that's why he was just at home in mountain caves as he was in bars and brothels. I personally do not have that level of relaisation so I cannot get away with it (too stuck in dualisms). 3. No you do not need license from anybody to do anything. You, after all, will be the one that deals with the consequences of your actions. 4. Drinking and not drinking are both extremes. Middle Way means being aware of the dependent nature, lack of self nature and impermanence of phenomena and circumstances. It's not like if you kill today and not kill tomorrow you are acting according to the middle way. 5. Actually if you want complete liberation you do have to be "perfect" at it (or at least aim at perfection), otherwise there are much easier ways to temporarily deal with suffering. I am sure you are well aware of them.