Problem with the 5th precept

Discuss your personal experience with the Dharma here. How has it enriched your life? What challenges does it present?

Re: What is an intoxicant?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:38 pm

zealot wrote:That would be the point I'm making. And untrained monkey brain is heedless. A trained brain that is not heedless is probably not heedless regardless of the cannabis consumption.
So train your brain and leave the consumption and overt advertising of an illicit drug alone.
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Zealot » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:47 pm

Such negativity! I am hurt, friends. First off, I never meant to "advertise illicit drugs". Where I live it is completely legal for my consumption, however it has never stopped either side from telling me why it's so great or horrible. I've felt much more love and compassion from the side consuming it, however. I do apologize if that was the interpreted intent. I am looking for a version of the fifth precept I can truly accept. Currently I have "I will be attached to no thing." But I found that thought while washing dishes after I smoked some legal medical cannabis. I am not perfect, and I do wish to rid myself of my attachment to all things, cannabis included and underlined.

I do feel like Seishen has a severe negativity towards cannabis, however.
Seishen wrote:
Zealot wrote:So there is a universal truth in which cannabis causes more illusions and cannot possibly help free us from any of them?

According to the Buddha and countless Dharma masters

Zealot wrote:That would be the point I'm making. And untrained monkey brain is heedless. A trained brain that is not heedless is probably not heedless regardless of the cannabis consumption.


1) If you were enlightened then I doubt cannabis would have an effect, so it would be completely pointless taking it.
2) Cannabis does not lead to enlightenment so there is no point it taking it


You Are Being Silly! And there is no universal truth such as that. There is once such as we are all enlightened beings, we just have to realize it. What if cannabis helped me towards that realization? Can you not accept that?


Seishen wrote:You wouldn't wither from malnutrition, the chemicals in the cannabis would have a overwhelmingly negative effect on your body and mind that would be either severe or permanent. I think this might be in breach of DW terms and conditions... :thinking:


Negativity! Please show me some study to support cannabis chemicals can have ANY " overwhelmingly negative effect on your body and mind that would be either severe or permanent". Also, your negativity is furthered by assuming I'm encouraging the use of illegal substances. It seems like you think I am a bad person. Seriously, I am trying to be the best Buddhist I can, and I have been very confused about the fifth precept.

edit: I feel like I didn't respond to what I perceived as an attack on my person with compassion but aggression instead. For that I apologize. I have been shown a compassionate welcome to this place and I do not wish to sully it with arguments.

Azidonis wrote:Along the Path, any thought, word, or deed that doesn't further the progress of the Aspirant is a distraction, an intoxicant.
When there is no Path, there is no distraction, no intoxicants. None are necessary, and none will distract.


Thank you! That was eloquently stated. You speak words to my heart that I can accept and share.

:namaste:
"My life for Aiur!" - Protoss Zealot
Zealot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Seishin » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:15 pm

I'm sorry you feel that I am being negative or biased. I can assure you I am not. I think you've taken this to heart and are projecting things on to me which aren't true.

It doesn't matter whether cannabis is legal or not (I never mentioned the law), what matters is the fifth precept. "I vow to abstain from taking any intoxicant that can cause heedlessness". If you can't accept this then don't take the precepts.

As to the effects of cannabis: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 810712.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/cannabis

For the record, I have nothing against cannabis nor anyone who takes it. You asked about cannabis, the fifth precept and enlightenment, and I gave an answer. Just because it wasn't what you wanted to hear doesn't make my answer negative nor biased.

Gassho,
Seishin.
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Seishin » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:22 pm

User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Azidonis » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:27 pm

Zealot wrote:
Azidonis wrote:Along the Path, any thought, word, or deed that doesn't further the progress of the Aspirant is a distraction, an intoxicant.
When there is no Path, there is no distraction, no intoxicants. None are necessary, and none will distract.


Thank you! That was eloquently stated. You speak words to my heart that I can accept and share.

:namaste:


Keep in mind the cessation of attachments.

Where there is cessation, there is no need for any kind of substance, legal, natural, or otherwise. That doesn't make said substances good or bad, or anything. The need for them, or desire for them, simply is not there. If the desire is not there, the craving does not exist. If the craving does not exist, one does not partake of the substance. In the random event that one does, then it happens, and is gone.

I am reminded of the story of a monk and his Master walking through the forest. They come to a small river, with a woman trying to cross it. The Master picks the woman up and carries her across the river, then sets her down and continues walking. The Master and monk walk for more 5 miles, and the young monk can bear it no longer. He says, "Master, is it true we are not supposed to talk to women?" The Master replies, "Yes monk, that is true." The monk says, "Master, is it true we are not allowed to touch women?" The Master replies, "Yes monk, that is true." The monk asks the Master, "Well then Master, why did you pick that woman up and carry her across the river?" The Master replied, "Yes, I did pick her up and carry her across the water. Then I sat her down. You have been carrying her for 5 miles."
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Zealot » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:30 pm

This whole argument is tangental to the question I asked, Seishen. The question was thus: "What is an intoxicant?" If you didn't come to this topic to answer that question, why did you come here?

:namaste:
"My life for Aiur!" - Protoss Zealot
Zealot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Seishin » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:34 pm

I did answer it here:-
Seishin wrote:The sutras are clear in that anything that causes heedlessness is an intoxicant (unless used for medication). Therefore cannibis is an intoxicant. The Buddha never said anything that makes you happy is ok.

Gassho,
Seishin


And here:-
Seishin wrote:Obviously, the intended use of the substance is what differentiates between the two. Medicine is usually taken to heal the body (and sometimes the mind), however so many people kid themselves into thinking they are taking a substance for it's health benefits, when in actual fact they are using it to become intoxicated.

Gassho,
Seishin


Everything that followed were answers to subsequent questions.

Gassho,
Seishin.
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:58 pm

Zealot wrote:I am looking for a version of the fifth precept I can truly accept.
Yes, well, the ego is like that isn't it?
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: What is an intoxicant?

Postby xtracorrupt » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:24 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
zealot wrote:That would be the point I'm making. And untrained monkey brain is heedless. A trained brain that is not heedless is probably not heedless regardless of the cannabis consumption.
So train your brain and leave the consumption and overt advertising of an illicit drug alone.
:namaste:


One can have consumption of good intent, example wanting to consume cannabis in order to understand , I would not advise using it unless minimum stream enterer because your ignorance will cause delusion, therefore slandered information.

:anjali:
Existence can be normal.
Ex:a Apple tree is a apple tree
Ex:Michael is Michael, Michael is who Michael is


Existence can be conditioned.
Ex: Apple tree is apple tree if apple tree grows
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is not walking

Existence can be unconditioned
Ex: Apple is apple tree once apple tree is grown for 50 weeks
Ex: Michael is Michael once Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is content Michael once Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is discontent Michael once Michael is walking.
xtracorrupt
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:04 am

Zealot wrote: I think your view that the Dharma is the only tool to heal the human condition is incorrect. That's like saying that there's only one way to achieve enlightenment.


Yeah, but what I said was:
"...the BuddhaDharma is the only medicine based on that diagnosis of the human condition.
There are lots of meds for all kinds of stuff that will heal this and that. Politics, religion, money, power, drugs, whatever. make you feel real good. But BuddhaDharma is the only one that treats the cause and not just the symptoms. "

Buddha never talked about enlightenment. He talked about the perfect cessation of the mind's unrelenting dissatisfaction.
What he showed was the core cause of suffering and how to completely uproot it. He didn't just make something up for people to believe in. And if he hadn't explained it, eventually probably somebody else would have. I say this because it is essentially true and sooner or later people learn the truth about things. Any method that accomplishes this goal is the same as what the Buddha taught. But there aren't any other methods that address this root cause. If there are any. then they are Buddha Dharma.. As i said, there are plenty of paths to happiness. For example, smoking pot can make a person happy. maybe not everybody, but a lot of people. It always made me feel good. I'm not disagreeing with you there. You asked, "Is the Dharma the only tool we should use to heal ourselves?" and you can certanly use whatever is at your disposal. All i am saying, and i'm sticking to this, is that Buddha Dharma is the only teaching that actually addresses the root cause of suffering. Cannabis may take you all kinds of places, but it doesn't do this one simple thing.


Zealot wrote:Buddha constantly says that the Dharma is not real, it is just a un-truth with a much higher propensity to leading us to the truth.

Where does he constantly say this? For that matter, where does he ever say it?

Zealot wrote:So what's the difference between a bowl of oatmeal or a bowl of my favorite cannabis?


Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that in some respects, all things we ingest, because they alter us in one way or another, that they are thus all essentially the same? I'll agree with you that in that respect they are all the same, but I'll argue that it's a moot point. That's like saying that because a cat and a chair each have 4 legs they are interchangeable. If that were the case, a table would interfere with your concentration as much as your cat does.

Zealot wrote:What if through cannabis I can lead others toward the path to enlightenment?

Hey... go for it. I've been a student of Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhism for almost 29 years. You know what led me to that? Studying the writings of "Chairman Mao". So, you know, stranger things have happened. many paths lead to Dharma. maybe smoking pot brought you here.

Zealot wrote:What is getting high?

Are you asking "what is it that gets high?" ... is that what you have really been asking all along? My reply to that earlier was that it is the same mind that doesn't get high.

At the risk of violating some rule on this forum about promoting drug use...
let me come right out and say I think that for a lot of people, smoking pot has had a very positive mind-opening effect. it's no secret that lots of people who got into Buddhism did so after experimenting with mind-altering substances (besides oatmeal) and had , as a result, come to feel that there was a little deeper way of understanding themselves and the universe that what they were limited to before.

But if the topic is whether marijuana should be on Buddha's intoxicant list or not, you know, people are either going to use it or they aren't, so what's the point? But if you take the precepts formally, you are supposed to keep them.

When my teacher gave the precepts and was explaining them, he told this story. A monk was accompanying a woman somewhere and they went into a cave and she asked him to kill a goat for her. he said no, he couldn't do that, because of his precept vows not to kill. So, she asked him, would you care for a drink (alcohol) ? And he did not want to seem impolite or ungrateful, especially since she was already disappointed that he wouldn't kill the goat for her, so he accepted. After all, it wasn't a "real' precept like the other ones. it was just a "branch" precept, just to keep you on the old 'straight and narrow'. But he drank more and more and before the night was over, he had killed the goat, and had sex with the woman and blah blah blah you know, just totally blew it. This may sound like some typical 'slippery slope" morality story--- and it is. but, as i mentioned to my teacher, at least he didn't kill the woman and have sex with the goat!

But the point is that generally speaking, "liberation through cannabis" does not lead one to where the Buddha was trying to take people. The primary reason, perhaps, is because using pot is a completely conditional experience and therefore any positive results one may achieve will always be only temporary.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: What is an intoxicant?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:09 am

xtracorrupt wrote:One can have consumption of good intent, example wanting to consume cannabis in order to understand...
How can consuming cannabis make you understand? If that was the case they would be handing out hash brownies before every vipassana session or Dharma teaching and the Buddha would not have bothered with the fifth precept. This is Buddhism we are talking about here, not Rastafarianism.
:namaste:
PS Zealot, if you are using medically perscribed marijuana for legitimate medical purposes then, even though it may have an intoxicating effect, I would not consider it a contravention of the fifth precept. Intention plays a role, but wanting to get ripped (no matter how one tries to justify it) is in contravention of the fifth precept since wanting to get stoned is merely wanting to reduce ones mindfulness.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: What is an intoxicant?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:20 pm

gregkavarnos wrote: How can consuming cannabis make you understand?


Cannabis tends to give one a different experience of the same 'reality', and usually with pleasant side-effects.
For many people this opens the door to the possibility that a different experience or understanding of what we usually perceive is possible, the result that one becomes more willing to let go of one's attachment to one's usual perceptions of things.
For many people, this coincides quite conveniently with an exploration of Buddhist philospohy.

but that's about all, and really, it isn't very much.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: What is an intoxicant?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:42 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Cannabis tends to give one a different experience of the same 'reality', and usually with pleasant side-effects.
I disagree. What we call reality is merely our interpretation of experiences. There is no independently existing reality beyond what one experiences. The only thing being stoned does is give you an experience of being stoned. It gives you a stoned reality. And like you say, this "reality" (stoned experience) may be pleasant. It also may be dominated by fear and paranoia. Given that it has this mutable capacity places it firmly within the realm of samsaric experience. Jhana experiences (for example) are not open to a variety of interpretation, that is why they lead us beyond samsara.
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Zealot » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:00 pm

Seishin wrote:I did answer it here:-
Seishin wrote:The sutras are clear in that anything that causes heedlessness is an intoxicant (unless used for medication). Therefore cannibis is an intoxicant. The Buddha never said anything that makes you happy is ok.

Gassho,
Seishin


And here:-
Seishin wrote:Obviously, the intended use of the substance is what differentiates between the two. Medicine is usually taken to heal the body (and sometimes the mind), however so many people kid themselves into thinking they are taking a substance for it's health benefits, when in actual fact they are using it to become intoxicated.

Gassho,
Seishin


Everything that followed were answers to subsequent questions.

Gassho,
Seishin.


Ipso facto aye? Your logic doesn't match up, sir. That is why I could not accept your answers.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Zealot wrote: I think your view that the Dharma is the only tool to heal the human condition is incorrect. That's like saying that there's only one way to achieve enlightenment.


Yeah, but what I said was:
"...the BuddhaDharma is the only medicine based on that diagnosis of the human condition.
There are lots of meds for all kinds of stuff that will heal this and that. Politics, religion, money, power, drugs, whatever. make you feel real good. But BuddhaDharma is the only one that treats the cause and not just the symptoms. "

Buddha never talked about enlightenment. He talked about the perfect cessation of the mind's unrelenting dissatisfaction.
What he showed was the core cause of suffering and how to completely uproot it. He didn't just make something up for people to believe in. And if he hadn't explained it, eventually probably somebody else would have. I say this because it is essentially true and sooner or later people learn the truth about things. Any method that accomplishes this goal is the same as what the Buddha taught. But there aren't any other methods that address this root cause. If there are any. then they are Buddha Dharma.. As i said, there are plenty of paths to happiness. For example, smoking pot can make a person happy. maybe not everybody, but a lot of people. It always made me feel good. I'm not disagreeing with you there. You asked, "Is the Dharma the only tool we should use to heal ourselves?" and you can certanly use whatever is at your disposal. All i am saying, and i'm sticking to this, is that Buddha Dharma is the only teaching that actually addresses the root cause of suffering. Cannabis may take you all kinds of places, but it doesn't do this one simple thing.


Zealot wrote:Buddha constantly says that the Dharma is not real, it is just a un-truth with a much higher propensity to leading us to the truth.

Where does he constantly say this? For that matter, where does he ever say it?


Sorry, Im currently reading A Treasury of Mahayana Sutras, selections from Maharatnakuta Sutra, in conversations between Buddha and his followers talks about the truth of non-grasping of the Dharma in which the Dharma itself is not the highest truth, but the non-grasping which should be sought to be attained. Also, I don't think the Buddha Dharma is the only belief system that says because we want, we will suffer. But could just be nit-picking :twothumbsup:

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Zealot wrote:So what's the difference between a bowl of oatmeal or a bowl of my favorite cannabis?


Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that in some respects, all things we ingest, because they alter us in one way or another, that they are thus all essentially the same? I'll agree with you that in that respect they are all the same, but I'll argue that it's a moot point. That's like saying that because a cat and a chair each have 4 legs they are interchangeable. If that were the case, a table would interfere with your concentration as much as your cat does.

Zealot wrote:What if through cannabis I can lead others toward the path to enlightenment?

Hey... go for it. I've been a student of Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhism for almost 29 years. You know what led me to that? Studying the writings of "Chairman Mao". So, you know, stranger things have happened. many paths lead to Dharma. maybe smoking pot brought you here.

Zealot wrote:What is getting high?

Are you asking "what is it that gets high?" ... is that what you have really been asking all along? My reply to that earlier was that it is the same mind that doesn't get high.

At the risk of violating some rule on this forum about promoting drug use...
let me come right out and say I think that for a lot of people, smoking pot has had a very positive mind-opening effect. it's no secret that lots of people who got into Buddhism did so after experimenting with mind-altering substances (besides oatmeal) and had , as a result, come to feel that there was a little deeper way of understanding themselves and the universe that what they were limited to before.

But if the topic is whether marijuana should be on Buddha's intoxicant list or not, you know, people are either going to use it or they aren't, so what's the point? But if you take the precepts formally, you are supposed to keep them.

When my teacher gave the precepts and was explaining them, he told this story. A monk was accompanying a woman somewhere and they went into a cave and she asked him to kill a goat for her. he said no, he couldn't do that, because of his precept vows not to kill. So, she asked him, would you care for a drink (alcohol) ? And he did not want to seem impolite or ungrateful, especially since she was already disappointed that he wouldn't kill the goat for her, so he accepted. After all, it wasn't a "real' precept like the other ones. it was just a "branch" precept, just to keep you on the old 'straight and narrow'. But he drank more and more and before the night was over, he had killed the goat, and had sex with the woman and blah blah blah you know, just totally blew it. This may sound like some typical 'slippery slope" morality story--- and it is. but, as i mentioned to my teacher, at least he didn't kill the woman and have sex with the goat!

But the point is that generally speaking, "liberation through cannabis" does not lead one to where the Buddha was trying to take people. The primary reason, perhaps, is because using pot is a completely conditional experience and therefore any positive results one may achieve will always be only temporary.
.
.
.


Yes, exactly! They both alter our consciousness or get us 'high' in some form or another, just like a any physical thing (be it a cat or a chair Can cause heedlessness). I do not accept the definition of cannabis as an intoxicant, because I don't think being 'high' off of it causes heedlessness directly. However, my version of the fifth precept is that "I will be attached to no thing", so I don't intend to continue my daily habit because it makes me happy to do so. That's just silly and continues the cycle the precept was meant to break. I haven't formally taken any vows as I wish to; I am still wrapping myself around facets of belief :)

gregkavarnos wrote:
xtracorrupt wrote:One can have consumption of good intent, example wanting to consume cannabis in order to understand...
How can consuming cannabis make you understand? If that was the case they would be handing out hash brownies before every vipassana session or Dharma teaching and the Buddha would not have bothered with the fifth precept. This is Buddhism we are talking about here, not Rastafarianism.
:namaste:
PS Zealot, if you are using medically perscribed marijuana for legitimate medical purposes then, even though it may have an intoxicating effect, I would not consider it a contravention of the fifth precept. Intention plays a role, but wanting to get ripped (no matter how one tries to justify it) is in contravention of the fifth precept since wanting to get stoned is merely wanting to reduce ones mindfulness.


Well, up until a recent point in my life, cannabis was my head medicine. It made me understand things better, it made me feel better, it made me more compassionate. Now I see that I am capable of all of those things alone and that using cannabis to further my means of compassion and self-reliance would be silly and detrimental. In short, Buddhism has become my new head meds :D

gregkavarnos wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Cannabis tends to give one a different experience of the same 'reality', and usually with pleasant side-effects.
I disagree. What we call reality is merely our interpretation of experiences. There is no independently existing reality beyond what one experiences. The only thing being stoned does is give you an experience of being stoned. It gives you a stoned reality. And like you say, this "reality" (stoned experience) may be pleasant. It also may be dominated by fear and paranoia. Given that it has this mutable capacity places it firmly within the realm of samsaric experience. Jhana experiences (for example) are not open to a variety of interpretation, that is why they lead us beyond samsara.
:namaste:


So you're saying because our mind is not of samsara, what is capable with it is beyond even the most profound worldly rituals involving the use of hallucinogens to gain greater insight?

Fantastic views and points, friends. I hope never to offend any of you with my words but for us all to be raised to a higher, deeper, or more profound understanding through our talks.

:namaste:
"My life for Aiur!" - Protoss Zealot
Zealot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Seishin » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:04 pm

Zealot wrote:
Seishin wrote:I did answer it here:-
Seishin wrote:The sutras are clear in that anything that causes heedlessness is an intoxicant (unless used for medication). Therefore cannibis is an intoxicant. The Buddha never said anything that makes you happy is ok.

Gassho,
Seishin


And here:-
Seishin wrote:Obviously, the intended use of the substance is what differentiates between the two. Medicine is usually taken to heal the body (and sometimes the mind), however so many people kid themselves into thinking they are taking a substance for it's health benefits, when in actual fact they are using it to become intoxicated.

Gassho,
Seishin


Everything that followed were answers to subsequent questions.

Gassho,
Seishin.


Ipso facto aye? Your logic doesn't match up, sir. That is why I could not accept your answers.



I'd love to hear where the logic is amiss.

Gassho,
Seishin.
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Zealot » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:35 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_facto

I just told you, sir. You said that anything that causes heedlessness is an intoxicant, therefore cannabis is an intoxicant. By the preceding statement alone, the only 'fact' you've laid out was that heedlessness is the result of an intoxicant. Then you further purported that because of this fact itself (ipso facto), cannabis is an intoxicant. You neither defined heedlessness or proved that cannabis causes this, however.

Also, I don't think intended use differentiates the two. And if it has, you have yet to prove that because a medicine causes heedlessness it is okay to use as it doesn't technically break the fifth precept. Where is the technicality?

:namaste:
"My life for Aiur!" - Protoss Zealot
Zealot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby CrawfordHollow » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:57 pm

Zealot,

are you seriously considering taking the 5th precept? If so, then you need to direct these questions or yours regarding pot to the teacher/lineage master that you are taking the precept from. I can assure you that there is no teacher out there that would agree to giving you the precept knowing that you would continue to smoke weed. The precepts are a huge sacrifice and commitment, they are not to be taken lightly. If you are not ready to make those sacrifices (such as giving up pot), then fine. No one is going to make you take any precept or vow that you are not ready for. I would suggest you think long and hard before taking any vow. It is much better not to take a vow than to take one that you can't keep. If you are not ready to give up weed, fine. But please don't think that you can twist the precepts around so that you can fit them into your agenda more easily. That goes against the very nature and spirit of the vows. If you are going to take the 5th precept, that means no more weed. Period. There's really no room for interpretation, here... sorry. Have you talked to a teacher about this? I think as you progress further along with your practice you may come to realize that the ideas that you have about weed may just be another layer of obscuration. And thats what the practice is all about, peeling back those layers, bit by bit. It worked for Buddha and countless other masters and practitioners. I am not so sure how well it worked out for all the countless drug users, though...
CrawfordHollow
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Seishin » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:00 pm

Zealot,
This is really going around in circles (samsara). This is a Buddhist forum and you asked a question about a Buddhist concept. I defined what is an intoxicant based on the Buddhist sutras. In Buddhism your intentions are of key importance (see the 8 fold path: Right Intention). IF, you don't believe that your intentions change anything then you are disagreeing with Buddhist doctrine. I am trying to help you but you have just thrown everything I've said back in my face. Therefore I shall not be replying on this thread. I wish you the best of luck.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... toend.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda04.htm


Gassho,
Seishin.

PS, I just want to note, in Buddhism, taking an intoxicant is only bad if you've taken the precept. If you haven't taken it then there is no problem.
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:34 pm

Zealot wrote:So you're saying because our mind is not of samsara, what is capable with it is beyond even the most profound worldly rituals involving the use of hallucinogens to gain greater insight?
What I am saying is that all samsaric experiences are suffering. Even the pleasant ones. Getting pleasantly stoned will lead to us wanting to get pleasantly stoned again. Will lead to grasping for the pleasant experience. Will lead to feeling more suffering when the pleasant experiences ends... Profound worldly experiences are just that: worldly. Profound meditational experiences are just profound. maybe one can have a profound meditational experience involving hallucinogens. But if one does not realise that the experience was merely mind, then one get's stuck on using the hallucinogens to recreate the experience. The crutch becomes a permanent fixture for walking instead of a possibly temporary aid.

Unfortunately though, the substances take their toll on one's physical and mental health.

seishin wrote:PS, I just want to note, in Buddhism, taking an intoxicant is only bad if you've taken the precept. If you haven't taken it then there is no problem.
This is not quite true, there is a problem, there just is not a problem with breaking the precept. It is just the normal everyday problem associated with intoxicating substances.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Problem with the 5th precept

Postby Seishin » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:36 pm

Sorry yes that's what I meant. :smile:

PPS. I have found a document examining the fifth precept, intoxication and heedlessness http://www.chezpaul.org.uk/buddhism/MSt ... tation.htm scroll down the "3. The Fifth Precept and its underlying significances"

Gassho
Seishin
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to Personal Experience

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>