Drugs: A tool, useful for good and bad?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Drugs: A tool, useful for good and bad?

Post by Buckwheat »

Skeptic wrote:...I have decided to be abstinent Yesterday....
Congratulations!! I am happy for you, Skeptic. :anjali:
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:05 am

Re: Drugs: A tool, useful for good and bad?

Post by nobody12345 »

Ok, it was not from PDF book.
(I used search option on it and couldn’t find it)
So I looked into the printed books that I have.
However, after sometime, I gave up because it’s simply too much time consuming.
So instead I did google search to find it since lots of Dhamma talk of Ajahn Chah is on the web already.
So I found the one and link is attached below.

The words, ‘the blind’ and ‘the deaf’ have been highlighted so you will read it easily.
However I have to admit that the wording is different than I remembered and it’s on my fault.
As you can read from the last part of quote, the exact statement is
“…If that was the case then blind and deaf people would be enlightened.”
You can read the whole quote to get the context.

Also I need to draw the attention that Ajahn Chah sometimes used the word peace instead of liberation/enlightenment in certain occasions.
And I provided quote below with highlighted words for your easy reading.
(The content is identical with the link)

And if you took offense in any way, I am the one who is responsible, not Ajahn Chah.
Ajahn Chah’s Dhamma talk was wholesome and supreme and it was me who mentioned it with unskillful manner so it generated misunderstanding. ... dbinGnJA--

Quote from link: “But actually, if we live very quietly in places where nothing arises, can wisdom arise? Would we be aware of anything? Think about it. If our eye didn't see sights, what would that be like? If the nose didn't experience smells, what would that be like? If the tongue didn't experience flavors what would that be like? If the body didn't experience feelings at all, what would that be like? To be like that would be like being a blind and deaf man, one whose nose and tongue had fallen off and who was completely numb with paralysis. Would there be anything there? And yet people tend to think that if they went somewhere where nothing happened they would find peace. Well, I've thought like that myself, I once thought that way . . .
If we think that peace lies where there are no sensations would wisdom arise? Would there be causal and resultant conditions? Would we have anything to practice with? If we blame the sounds, then where there are sounds we can't be peaceful. We think that place is no good. Wherever there are sights we say that's not peaceful. If that's the case then to find peace we'd have to be one whose senses have all died, blind, and deaf. I thought about this . . . "Hmm. This is strange. Suffering arises because of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind. So should we be blind? If we didn't see anything at all maybe that would be better. One would have no defilements arising if one were blind, or deaf. Is this the way it is?" . . . But, thinking about it, it wall all wrong. If that was the case then blind and deaf people would be enlightened.”

User avatar
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Drugs: A tool, useful for good and bad?

Post by beeblebrox »

Thanks, Imaginos. That seems to be the same quote that Cooran linked to... it makes more sense. The Buddha said almost the same thing (quoted in the same thread, by MikeNZ). Neither of them were saying that a deaf person can't be enlightened... just that the deafness in itself wouldn't be a sufficient condition. In the Buddha's case, it was only a refutation for someone's method of blocking out the sound.

You can extrapolate that to the topic of this thread, by the way... it should be obvious that using any mind-altering substance wouldn't be a sufficient condition in itself... or else everyone who's ever used them would be already enlightened.

It doesn't mean that anyone who's used them would never be enlightened. It's all in how you view your experience... whether you end up being attached to the experience or not (as a permanent source of happiness, for example)... whether you gain insight from it or not... etc. All of that will be due to the D.O. of the person's make-up. (Dependent Origination... starting with the extent of that person's knowledge of the four noble truths... i.e., 1) what is suffering; 2) what causes it; 3) when will be that suffering's ending; 4) and then discovering what kind of path leads to that ending.)


Post Reply