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.