Is 'Western' Buddhism too Liberal?

[punkdbass]

On the subject of intoxicants, all I will say is that the emphasis is not on the substances going into the body, it is on the mental states being produced.

Interesting, I haven't thought of it like that before but I like this explanation. But I guess the question then becomes -- are the mental states caused by the drug (e.g. alcohol or marijuana) supportive of wholesome states of mind, or are they supporting unwholesome states of mind? Definitely a tricky question to answer because drugs effect everyone slightly differently. The placebo effect, or one's state of mind going into the drug use can greatly effect the outcome -- the point being that the mental states being produced by the drug will differ for individuals. A Rastafarian who thinks that smoking a bowl will lead to a spiritual experience is more likely to experience a positive state of mind after doing so. Whereas a paranoiac who thinks that smoking a bowl will cause him to go crazy, will most likely lead to him experiencing a negative state of mind after doing so. Perhaps it is simpler to just recommend avoiding drugs as the Buddha does. Given that our minds are already polluted by enough greed, hatred, and delusion as it is, perhaps it is best to just not add drugs to the equation -- although I am open minded to the possibility of people being able to successfully do so. Anyhow, I digress.

 

[von bek]

Interesting, I haven't thought of it like that before but I like this explanation. But I guess the question then becomes -- are the mental states caused by the drug (e.g. alcohol or marijuana) supportive of wholesome states of mind, or are they supporting unwholesome states of mind? Definitely a tricky question to answer because drugs effect everyone slightly differently.

Great post and this particular passage is really key. Honestly, as you say later, it depends on the person. This is why we must be our own refuge by observing our own minds and bodies. The best way to avoid doing something stupid after drinking is to not drink. No argument from me. But, if you have a glass of wine or smoke a joint and simply relax while listening to some music, I honestly do not believe that is what the Buddha is concerned about...

 

[von bek]

xkatz: Thank you for starting this thread! It has been really good and is leading to some thought-provoking contributions.

 

[xkatz]

Many cold medications contain alcohol or ingredients that cause drowsiness. When you take them, your brain chemistry is being altered. Other medications contain ingredients that are used to produce meth. Again, taking them alters your brain and your body. This is why it is important to understand the mental states a particular substance causes to arise.

I see a difference though. People need food and medicine to survive and it's primary purpose is health and well-being. The main purpose of consuming things like alcohol is to purposely alter one's mind.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[von bek]

I see a difference though. People need food and medicine to survive and it's primary purpose is health and well-being. The main purpose of consuming things like alcohol is to purposely alter one's mind.

That's my 2 cents.

Caffeine is not needed for survival or well-being, it is consumed for the purpose of elevating your mood or providing quick energy to your body. It is altering your brain, does its consumption constitute breaking the precept? I say no because the mental states produced are not necessarily harmful to spiritual practice. And, going back to cold medicines with alcohol, are they okay to consume? If you place the emphasis on the SUBSTANCE, then it really would not be acceptable to drink some Ny-Quil. But, if you place your emphasis on the mental states produced, it clearly is okay to consume.

 

[punkdbass]

Great post and this particular passage is really key. Honestly, as you say later, it depends on the person. This is why we must be our own refuge by observing our own minds and bodies. The best way to avoid doing something stupid after drinking is to not drink. No argument from me. But, if you have a glass of wine or smoke a joint and simply relax while listening to some music, I honestly do not believe that is what the Buddha is concerned about...

I would like to add one more thought on the matter to get us to look at the question of "recreational drug use" from a different perspective. Rather than think of recreational drug use as a question of "right or wrong", or "spiritually permissible vs. not spiritually permissible", or whether or not one can be "justified" in the act, I'd like to look at the subject from a different perspective. I believe it was Thich Nhat Hanh who said something along the following lines:

Sure, maybe there are some people out there who can have 1 drink or smoke at the end of the day and develop no bad karma for doing so. However, when one looks at reality and sees the thousands upon thousands of people throughout history who have suffered immensely due to alcohol or other drug problems, one may be motivated out of compassion for such people to abstain entirely from alcohol or other drugs. Sure, maybe you are mentally stable and spiritually whole enough to have a mind altering substance every now and then with no negative effects (despite modern science proving that literally ALL drugs have some negative effects), but you may be motivated to completely abstain from doing so, out of compassion to the millions of people who have suffered immensely due to these substances.

Just a thought.

 

[von bek]

I will not argue with Thich Nhat Hanh.

 

[gsa]

Something that bothers me about Buddhists I have encountered at my college (as well other places) is that they are overwhelmingly ultra-leftwing liberals. However I don't see how things like drug and alcohol usage, abortion, or certain aspects of sexuality supported by liberals would be compatible with Buddhist dharma. And yet I have encountered many Buddhists who have no issue smoking marijuana or drinking copious amounts of liquor. While it is fair to argue that the Buddha was probably a revolutionary in his age, I don't think him or those who originally expounded his dharma would approve of some of these things.

I am not necessarily a Buddhist myself and it's not my intention to troll, but I want to know some DIR members' thoughts on this.

I have studied Buddhism, and practice Buddhist meditation from time to time. I also lived, briefly, in a Buddhist majority country. There was plenty of alcohol drinking, to be sure, and sexuality inconsistent with Buddhist ethics. Abortion was illegal, but there was definitely an underground demand for it, and the law is not exactly consistently applied.

Personally, I don't see much of this Western/Eastern divide on these issues. The bigger issue is that things like merit making are more common in Buddhist majority countries (at least Theravada), while largely absent here, and the practice of meditation, while open to laity and practiced more frequently by them in the modern era, is still largely the domain of the monastics there. I certainly agree that intoxication is inconsistent with Buddhist practice, but alcohol consumption is still pretty high in Buddhist majority countries (especially compared with Muslim majority countries).

Also, while things like Noah Levine's Dharma Punx appear out of alignment with the moral conservatism of Theravada, I think in practice he is fairly in line with the restrictions.

 

[ratikala]

namaste

''Sure, maybe there are some people out there who can have 1 drink or smoke at the end of the day and develop no bad karma for doing so. However, when one looks at reality and sees the thousands upon thousands of people throughout history who have suffered immensely due to alcohol or other drug problems, one may be motivated out of compassion for such people to abstain entirely from alcohol or other drugs. Sure, maybe you are mentally stable and spiritually whole enough to have a mind altering substance every now and then with no negative effects (despite modern science proving that literally ALL drugs have some negative effects), but you may be motivated to completely abstain from doing so, out of compassion to the millions of people who have suffered immensely due to these substances.''

Just a thought.

''Just a thought.''
and a perfect thought too , ...

what has allways mildly ammused me is that as a preliminary to meditation we learn to still the mind , ...why then do we need marijuana or a beer at the end of the day to help us relax ?

what The Buddha taught basicaly boils down to living an un complicated and unatatched life , ....this is right thought ,
... yet we indulge our selves in finding the justification to deviate from that simplicity .

Thich Nhat Hanh's un clouded perception draws our attention to the fact that by partaking of either recreational drugs or alcahol we are supporting an industry which is the cause of much suffering in society , therefore it is better not to even touch a drop , ...this is right action .

the only permissable instance that I could see for marijuana or alcahol would be purely medicinal , in which case it should be grown or produced for medicinal purposes alone and not traded for monetary gain ...this is right livlihood .

 

[ratikala]

I wouldn't say such is harmful. In excess however...

Harmfull only in that the above are deluding themselves(and others) into beleiving that they are Buddhist , ....

where as in truth it is farer to say that they have some Buddhist leanings . ..this would be more honest .

 

[Secret Chief]

Too liberal in the west??
So what about Buddhist monks in the east selling alcoholic drinks? Precept violation alert!

Buddhist monks use hip hop, alcohol to attract followers - CNN.com

 

[von bek]

Too liberal in the west??
So what about Buddhist monks in the east selling alcoholic drinks? Precept violation alert!

Buddhist monks use hip hop, alcohol to attract followers - CNN.com

Yeah. I think a lot of people have a romanticized view about monastic life elsewhere. As I've mentioned in another thread, in Burma a lot of monks smoke cigarettes. So much so that many lay followers donate cigarettes just as they donate food.

 

[von bek]

Harmfull only in that the above are deluding themselves(and others) into beleiving that they are Buddhist , ....

where as in truth it is farer to say that they have some Buddhist leanings . ..this would be more honest .

No. They can still very much be Buddhists. Even if you break a precept, all you need to do is retake it. If you have gone for refuge to the Triple Gem, you are a Buddhist. Drinking a beer no more removes you from the sangha completely than getting mad at someone does. It need only be a temporary setback.

 

[von bek]

ratikala,

What I'm trying to say is that a lack of perfection does not make you a non-Buddhist. If we were already perfect, there would be no need to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. But, we do not start our training as arahants. A follower of the Buddhadhamma may get angry with another person. The anger is not a Buddhist action and is not approved of; however, the one who gets angry is not removed from fellowship even though he or she has missed the mark. A Buddhist should not get angry at other people, but it does happen. Even monks and nuns can get angry if they have not yet achieved at least stream-entry. So, even if letting a single drop of alcohol touch your tongue is a violation of the precept, it only means that you have violated a precept. You should retake it and form the intention to avoid future unwholesome states of mind.

 

[Secret Chief]

A monk told me that Buddhism is "fall down six times, get up seven."

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram von bek ji

No. They can still very much be Buddhists. Even if you break a precept, all you need to do is retake it. If you have gone for refuge to the Triple Gem, you are a Buddhist. Drinking a beer no more removes you from the sangha completely than getting mad at someone does. It need only be a temporary setback.

Hee Hee , ... then better not get mad at any one

yes yes , I agree if one falls down get back up and reafirm ones commitments , ....but madness happens as an acidental reaction , no one goes out to get mad , it is a lapse of control , ...where upon we generaly vow to be more mindfull in future ,

....however falling into the off licence and buying a beer is hardly an acidental responce ...?

I am having rather a humorous picture of a small gaggle of would be buddhists apologeticaly vowing to be more mindfull in future and not accidentaly falling into an offlicence , ..then not accidentaly carrrying home the contraband substance , and accidentaly drinking it !!!

It reminds me of the age old jokes about catholacism , ...forgive me father for I have sined , .....

and I must ask how the western mind is perceiving Sangha ?
to my mind the whole purpose of Sangha is to offer mutual support in Dharma practice , ...thus we take refuge in sangha to help strengthen our motivation ....

yes yes , it s true that many lay Buddhists do not take full Pratimoksha , ..they consider it enough for one life time to vow to take refuge alone , ....but surely when Dharma speaks of the five silas , then should we not attempt to keep the moral precepts , and contribute not only to our own wellbeing but also to the well being of others ???

surely Sangha is the ordained comunity or at least advanced and fully committed practitioners to who one can turn to for any nececary support , in which case they should at least be following the five lay pratimoksha vows , ...

not to harm or to kill
not to take that which is not freely given
not to engage in sexual misconduct
not to engage in false speach or idle chatter
not to indulge in intoxicants which cause heedlessness

Ok it is true that in countries where Buddhism is an indiginous religion you will often find people who canot uphold their vows , yes you find monks that break these rules , but these monks did not choose to be born into a Buddhist comunity and most times did not choose to be put into the monestaries , ....

but here in the west those that claim to be Buddhist have chosen to do so therefore they should respect the committments they have chosen ???

 

[Secret Chief]

Dogma is not helpful I think. The precepts, the path, these are guidelines for imperfect, struggling beings. They are not wagging fingers, golden rules that must not be broken on pain of expulsion.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

please please take what I am saying as good humored after all the best way to make change is t see the absurdity of any given situation and to laugh at our tendency to cling to old habits which may not be in our best interests , ...

ratikala,

What I'm trying to say is that a lack of perfection does not make you a non-Buddhist. If we were already perfect, there would be no need to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. But, we do not start our training as arahants. A follower of the Buddhadhamma may get angry with another person. The anger is not a Buddhist action and is not approved of; however, the one who gets angry is not removed from fellowship even though he or she has missed the mark. A Buddhist should not get angry at other people, but it does happen. Even monks and nuns can get angry if they have not yet achieved at least stream-entry. So, even if letting a single drop of alcohol touch your tongue is a violation of the precept, it only means that you have violated a precept. You should retake it and form the intention to avoid future unwholesome states of mind.

it is not about one drop of alcahol , this could be contained in a medical preperation , in which case there is no problem , the problem comes with our wishing to use any substance , Coffee , Tea , Marijuana , or Alcahol as a crutch , as a pick you up or a calm you down , ....these states of reliance should not be encoraged or relied upon , ..... to call it a voilation of a precept is prehaps extreme , but it is advisable not to take a precept unless one intends to carry it out .

but all the while we justify minor transgressions we do our selves a diss service and prehaps also do a diss service to others .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Magag ji

Dogma is not helpful I think. The precepts, the path, these are guidelines for imperfect, struggling beings. They are not wagging fingers, golden rules that must not be broken on pain of expulsion.

it is not Dogma , ...the nitial question was do we think that western Buddhism or Buddhists are too liberal , in which case it is my choice to say yes

it is not a case of wagging fingers , or threats of expulsion , ...this is a discussion as to who thinks what

 

[Brickjectivity]

Just an outside comment about coffee. I drink it, because it tastes good to me; but for meditation practice I recommend infrequent use. See this interesting and helpful article: BBC News - Unexpected ways to wake up your brain

Regular use of coffee is not I think ideal for meditation, although occasional use should be beneficial. Also if you desire a caffeine boost consider a strong green tea instead of coffee, because it doesn't cause anxiety like coffee does.