Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

Intoxication or Addiction

Madangopal - October 31, 2004 6:00 pm

Swami on another thread:

[As for eating chocholate, do not eat it in excess and it will not hurt your bhakti. If you are addicted to it, that is a problem. Best to avoid it altogether other than hot cocoa milk with whipped cream.]

The priniciple then is that anything that is addictive should be regulated, be it food, work, exercise, sex, t.v. -or- if it is intoxicating (chemically mind altering) then it should be given up. Am I right? As Rama Keshava posted earlier, the intoxicating properties of chocolate can be called into question but it is definitely possible to be addicted to the pleasure it gives the tongue.

Just as a sidenote, in one of my Social Work classes we are discussing substance abuse. In my book a drug is defined as "any habit-forming substance that directly affects the brain and nervous system; it is a chemical substance that affects moods, perceptions, bodily functions, or consciousness and that has the potential for misuse as it may be harmful to the user."

- Caffeine is on their list as a drug. Sorry coffee fans.

Bhakta Ivar - November 1, 2004 11:04 am

Sometimes I eat a lot of chocolate bars, other times I don't and I don't miss it. So I don't think it's any more addictive than sweet rice. Let's not forget that Cacao is called Theobroma (or something like that), which I think means 'food received from the gods'.

Coffee is easy to live without when you go to bed early, i.e., throw out the TV.

Talking about an addictive object...

Ivar

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 3, 2004 8:59 pm

any habit-forming substance that directly affects the brain and nervous system; it is a chemical substance that affects moods, perceptions, bodily functions, or consciousness and that has the potential for misuse as it may be harmful to the user."

Just wanted to mention that anything we ingest has a direct effect on our nervous system and brain for example: sugar, carbs, fat, and all the things we eat. Granted that different suibstances "addict" us in different way but we are also addicted to food and water and have very serious withdrawal symptoms from those. Just wanted to stir some thing up but in general I think yes addiction is a terrible thing and intoxication as well. The kids of addictions brought on by drugs and alcohol are undoubtedly harmful and unhealthy and "death seeking" experiences rather then life affirming ones. That being said putting all the addictive substances on the same plain is unfair. There is difference betwen coffe and heroin (although it does feel at time I will die without an espresso). A good rule of thumb to use is if something takes you away from performing your devotional service it is probably not good and should be avoided. Hows that?

Vamsidhari

PS The most important aspect for me of being able to use chocolate is that I can make all these wonderful preparations with it be offered to Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai... what comes to mind is crepes with nutella and banana. yummmmmm

Guru-nistha Das - November 4, 2004 7:37 am

Hehe, that´s a cool post Vamsidhari.

I just recently dropped out on veganism after being one for eight years, and every time I have went to a grocery store, I have bought a milk chocolate bar(how can it be so good?).

So I decided to quit eating it alltogether because I was forming a bad habit.. and now i only think about chocolate every time i go to a store. Talking about false renunciation.

Bhakta Ivar - November 4, 2004 9:00 am

Some substances severely alter one's ability to perform devotional service and remain respectful to others. In this regard alcohol is perhaps worst of all available intoxicants (i.e. caffein, cacao, nicotine, THC and alcohol). Nothing increases pride and arrogance more and nothing makes one's bodily movements more uncontrolled than alcohol.

Ivar

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 4, 2004 3:49 pm

Folk proverb.

At the beginning he was eating chocolates with liquor, then liquor with chocolates and then just liquor.

In my opinion point in giving up things based not just on effect they have on body/mind thus harmful for performance of devotional service, but the act of renunciation is as important. For example, is it OK if I drink a little alcohol so my bodily movements are fine? Arjuna, Hanuman, etc were meat eaters, so why are we vegetarians? So besides offerability of the food the act of sacrifice is important. You have to give-up something to gain something. "I’m giving up sweets because they agitate my tongue and mind, so instead of pleasuring Krsna I’m pleasuring my tongue." That’s why ascetics had been eating very simply, just to sustain their body. So in a way Madangopal is absolutely correct -- material world is addicting and intoxicating but at the end gives you a huge hangover, that’s why we have to give it up -- cut the habit. Another example of addiction is collecting devotional books, CDs or parafernalia. Doesn’t make you a better Vaishnava to have all those books collecting dust in your bookcase

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 4, 2004 4:39 pm

I wanted to comment of apparent renunciation practices. I do not believe that people's spiritual progress is solely measured by the number of things they can give up, but by the sincerity and dedication with which they approach their service. Giving up things externally but contantly coveting desire in the heart for them is equivalent to not giving them up. This is how I see it:

1) False reninciation: X is bad I give it up because it is maya and an intoxicant I have no desire for X and I hate X actually. Meaniwhile, back in the camp, I am so attached to X by my hate and dispicable attitude towards it . My feelings towards X (or towards people who might be using X) and how I gave it up constitutes the majority of my thought and feelings.

2) Reninciation: X is something that is very attractive and serves some kind of purpose for me. I recognize that it has bad influence on my life and I am fotunate to be able to give it. At the same time I do not hate X or villify the people who might use it. I recognize that inside of me there is sometimes a desire for X and I also think about it. Externally I am able to give up X even with the cost it has on my internal life.

So I think that the second approach is more real and human. I also think that it is more compassionate not so black and white as we would like it to be. There has to be some understanding as to why things are given up that goes beyond the simple bad is expelled out so that one creates a semblance of good retained within. That approach neither removes the bad nor retains the good.

In service,

Vamsidhari dasa

PS I also increased my purchases of chocolate since it was removed from the "controlled substances" list. All the chocolate I buy I offer it to the Deities which I think makes Them happy. In this way I always have some prasadam to offer to people who come to my home.

Gopakumardas - November 4, 2004 5:56 pm

Istill haven't eaten chocolate this month!! (that's how this started) It is artificial renunciation because I am thinking of chocolate often... but I think in relation to a short-term vow that is appropriate. It is meant to be a sacrifice. Every time I think of chocolate and how it brings me pleasure... I think of Mahaprabhu and ask for his blessings instead. "May he make me humble, pious and give me a taste for chanting." Yes, its just chocolate... but it is a sacrifice and its palpable.

Madangopal - November 4, 2004 6:56 pm

It is artificial renunciation because I am thinking of chocolate often

Give yourself some credit! It would be false renunciation if you were just claiming your renunciation on this website and then chowing down on chocolate behind closed doors. Or if you lambasted everyone for their attachment to chocolate when you couldn't give it up yourself.

I'm surprised this thread is getting the mileage it is...

I liked a lot of what Vamsi has to say. Couldn't we put forward three types of renunciation? Stage one, false - as Vamsi explained. Stage two, giving up something while still attached to it. Stage three (and what is most effective) giving up of something one is attached to while accepting something positive (for example Krsna nama) that if cultivated properly will make one forget the object of attachment. One's renunciation will be complete and the taste from the positive so overwhelms the renounced item that it no longer is even an object of aversion.

Whew, that's what I want. You have to do the other stages though too... Or can you skip stage one??

NrsinghaDas - November 4, 2004 6:59 pm

In the Bhagavad Gita 2.59 Krsna says that one may still feel a desire for something that they have given up, but when they get the higher taste then it becomes "real renunciation" because they have become satisfied and thus fixed in thier position. Bhagavad Gita also mentions that one who restrains the senses while dwelling on the objects of sense gratification is a pretender. So it seems that the principal of artificial renuciation is present in both to some extent but one is condemed and the other leads to progress. So the difference is the orientation or intention with wich the austrity is performed, if we know why we should do it and can actually do it for that reason then we may struggle at first but it will become substancial in time. But if we become to proud and espesially if we think we are doing it by our own asertion and strength then it is niyamagraha and the seeds will sprout again when the enviroment test our authenticity. Like (I think it was) Vishvamitra Muni who after thousands of years meditating fell down when he saw two fish mateing.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 4, 2004 9:18 pm

I don't know how many people ever tried to quit smoking around here, but I use to be a heavy smoker and had to quit Cold Turkey because of regulative principles. It was the most excruciating things I've done in my life. I don't think I am attached to smoking by my hate nor I hate smokers, if I feel anything it probably would be pity. Your success depends on how badly you want to quit and whether or not you believe you can do it. Another difficult thing was tea, but I've packed all my Gong Fu Cha paraphernalia together with my Oolongs and Puerhs and put them on the attic. Chamomile does just fine

Madangopal - November 5, 2004 1:07 am

It was the most excruciating things I've done in my life.

Okay, this is getting back to my original thought. Something intoxicating - like nicotine - should be renounced because it is not favorable to spiritual progress because of its toxic effect on the body/mind.

Something addictive, say like chocolate, can be mentally intoxicating because of the attachment, but maybe not TOXIC. These things which we are addicted to (will be different for different people - one mans food is another's poison) should be regulated. Then I assume by the combination of regulation and positive engagement of the senses, that particular attachment (addiction) will fade away.

I had another point, but started this post at one moment and ended it three hours later.

By the way Nandaji you should be commended for giving up nicotine. I am not personally familiar with its addictive properties, but while studying substance abuse and addiction I have been told it is second only to heroine in its hold over the user.

I'm addicted to this little ninja smiley guy.

Bhakta Ivar - November 5, 2004 12:37 pm

Arjuna, Hanuman, etc were meat eaters, so why are we vegetarians?

If the translation of Ramayana that I've got is correct, to sanctify the hermitage Lakshman built, Ramachandra shot a black dear and they all ate it. Wasn't vegetarianism a later (Buddhism and Jainism) influence? If I'm correct, vegetarianism is not Vedic. It is part of Gaudiya Vedanta, of course. And no doubt a very good development in spiritual culture (except for the possibility of a lack of omega-3 fatty acids unless sufficient flaxseed oil is consumed).

Ivar

Madangopal - November 5, 2004 2:00 pm

Wasn't vegetarianism a later (Buddhism and Jainism) influence? If I'm correct, vegetarianism is not Vedic.

I have also heard this. But wouldn't brahmins before Buddha be vegetarian? It makes total sense for ksatriyas to eat meat, but brahmins?

Bhakta Ivar - November 5, 2004 6:27 pm

Why? If there are so many prescribed rituals involving the killing of animals (and burning their bodily fat as a type of incense), why wouldn't they eat the remains of the sacrifice?

Even in eco-villages today the vegetarian members do not know what to do with their male chickens and cows.

There's another interesting thing that comes to mind: in the more ancient Vedic civilization priests would take Soma, and their altered states of consciousness (described in certain Vedic scriptures) resembles an amphetamin or LSD trip. It is thought that Soma was either a "magic mushroom" or the recently banned Ephedra.

The native americans were wise and highly spiritual (depending on your point of view of course), yet they habitually broke two regulative principles: they ate meat and they used intoxicating herbs. So were the Vedic priests shamans?

Ivar

Audarya-lila Dasa - November 5, 2004 9:20 pm

The idea of being vegetarian is based on the principle of non violence which certainly is a Vedic concept and not something only later adopted due to Buddhist or Jain influences.

Guru Maharaja has spoken a couple of times about the 'four regulative principles' and what they are really about and why they have meaning for us beyond simple do's and dont's. These talks are on CD.

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

Babhru Das - November 5, 2004 10:53 pm

So were the Vedic priests shamans?

This is an interesting question. My understanding is that in traditional cultures there was most often a distinction between priests and shamans. The priests represented order and led the rituals that helped others fit into society, whereas the shamans were the visionaries, mystics, who had (by meditation- or drug-induced trance) "gone there and come back to tell about it." They did not represent social order but the need to transcend it (I"m not sure that's the best way to put it) and were often just crazy by social norms. In traditional Hawaiian culture, for example, the kahuna are generally considered priests, whereas the shamans are called kupua. There is often some crossover, and the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but there is generally a division. Nowadays, it seems, there are many who receive training as both kahuna and kupua and are able to serve in either function, according to what's needed. From what I've seen, the kupua these days generally practice huna, traditional Hawaiian healing arts (not all herbs and hot rocks, but some more subtle stuff, too).

Madangopal - November 5, 2004 11:26 pm

These talks are on CD.

Yes, these are the greatest. The common sense meter in my head was overloading when I listened to them.

As for Ivar's point about the Soma... I remember this one scholar Klostermaier that I studied in school came to some of these same conclusions. It definitely takes the glamour out of the stories in the Bhagavatam. Some of the scholarly conclusions on Hinduism like we are talking about seem to make some sense, though necessarily coming from an objective point of view. Their discipline is rooted in science rather than any type of faith...

One thing about brahmins eating meat, or taking intoxication... From the scholars point of view that I studied, they divided Hindus into sociological categories. They speak about different levels of worship, similar to the way we speak of the modes of nature. Simply put, brahmins of tamasic (my word) schools worshipped "blood" gods, ate meat, sacrificed animals and offered intoxicating substances to their deities - Durga, Kali, forms of Siva, etc. Yes they ate/eat "prasad" meat after offering. Another type of brahmins worshipped in the mode of goodness and their gods were vegetarian. They offered uncooked foods and generally considered intoxication a bad thing. Guess who they worship - Visnu!

This is all in the way I have read Indologists/Ethnographers speak about Hinduism. I'm still not sure that even from their point of view that all brahmins were meat-eaters before the influence of the other religions in India. It seems to me that whatever historical take you accept, Hindus come in varieties of modes of worship.

Madangopal - November 5, 2004 11:33 pm

My understanding is that in traditional cultures there was most often a distinction between priests and shamans.

Again, according to these scholars I was reading, they also included this second type of priest. There was the brahmin, who worked directly with the high gods. Then there was this type of intermediary "medicine man" if you will who dealt with the villagers, conjuring spells to protect them, generally understood to have a relationship with local village gods, and also working with ghosts and such. Kind of like your local mystic. With a lot of the qualities like Babhru mentioned. Again, interpreted by my understanding it seems these people are not the same as a brahmin, but kind of a tamasic mystic kind of figure. Still respected, though on a different level.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 6, 2004 6:25 am

...As for Ivar's point about the Soma...

I wouldn't compare dancing naked around the fire on LSD screaming "I'm God, I'm God!" and actually channeling sabda pramana.

Rig-Veda 8.48.3: We have drunk the Soma. We have become immortal. We have gone to the light. We have found the Gods.

None the less we have our path and they have theirs... Destination will be a little different though

harer nama harer nama

harer namaiva kevalam

kalau nasty eva nasty eva

nasty eva gatir anyatha

Bhakta Ivar - November 6, 2004 10:39 am

When I first took LSD I walked around in a forest repeating to myself "I'm an eternal servant of God, I'm an eternal servant of God." I wasn't paranoid or having a bad trip, I was simply contemplating and believing the idea that I was an eternal servant of God. Because that's what I had read (in a Dutch poem) a few days before I took LSD. The hippies who shouted "I'm God!" no doubt had listened to one of the Mayavadi swami's, the main Indian influence before Srila Prabhupada came to set things straight. A trip is always influenced by a person's previous beliefs, cultural setting, general level of spiritual growth etc.

I must admit that I did not feel comfortable wearing the clothes I had on, but then again, that may have reflected a natural desire to wear robes instead of jeans. I never went running around out naked though.

This is not to defend the use of psychedelic substances. It simply means that our present Vedic culture rejects things which actually had a place in the "original" Vedic culture. I regret I do not have that translation of the "Soma-trip" anymore. Perhaps I can find it in the library. What I do remember clearly is that the priest didn't describe being picked up by a vimana or meeting the Moon god (as you would expect in a Purana). What he described was basically the same as what authors like Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary have written.

Of course psychedelic substances have not allowed any modern acid head to produce the type of texts the sages have "channeled" (on astrology, astronomy or advanced mathematics for example). Ekanath dasa told me that Patanjali mentions "ausadhi" (herbs) as one of the means to acchieving siddhis. But I haven't seen any hippy develop a siddhi.

As far as a distinction between shaman and priest, it sounds like the difference between muni and brahmana. The munis may have written the philosophical and mystic Upanisads, the brahmanas the ritualistic Vedas. But I'm not sure such distinctions were there when the Soma ritual was popular. If I'm not mistaken the Soma juice was taken by the priests who performed the fire sacrifice.

Still, it remains an interesting question to what extent the Vedic scriptures (including the Puranas) were influenced by hallucinogen induced visions... Why did nature create these herbs?

Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 6, 2004 11:13 pm

There's another interesting thing that comes to mind: in the more ancient Vedic civilization priests would take Soma, and their altered states of consciousness (described in certain Vedic scriptures) resembles an amphetamin or LSD trip. It is thought that Soma was either a "magic mushroom" or the recently banned Ephedra.

And Sri Caitanya's extreme asta-sattvika-vicara appears to some scholars like a form of epilepsy.

What does the scripture actually say about Soma? I thought it was a drink of the gods, i.e. not available to mere mortals. I also recall something in relation to the moon but I forget what exactly.

Still, it remains an interesting question to what extent the Vedic scriptures (including the Puranas) were influenced by hallucinogen induced visions... Why did nature create these herbs?

I think you start down a slippery path to relativising everything when you start to think about sages visions in terms of them being derrived from injesting some kind of halucinogen.

Spiritual insight and intoxicated states are day and night, lets give the sages some credit and assume they knew the difference.

Also, Sridhara maharaja addressed this question of halucinogens bringing about mystical experience by stating that it would make transcendent reality subordinate to a mundane herb/fungus. Not exactly something in line with our siddhanta.

Why did nature create these herbs?

Everything exists for a reason, not necessarily for us though.

Dayal Govinda dasa

Bijaya Kumara Das - November 7, 2004 3:42 am

Arjuna, Hanuman, etc were meat eaters, so why are we vegetarians?

 

If the translation of Ramayana that I've got is correct, to sanctify the hermitage Lakshman built, Ramachandra shot a black dear and they all ate it. Wasn't vegetarianism a later (Buddhism and Jainism) influence? If I'm correct, vegetarianism is not Vedic. It is part of Gaudiya Vedanta, of course. And no doubt a very good development in spiritual culture (except for the possibility of a lack of omega-3 fatty acids unless sufficient flaxseed oil is consumed).

 

Ivar

In the 5th canto it is discribe how, who and what may be eaten and when similar to the Roman chapter of the bible.

It was spoken and or written long before.

Bijaya Kumara Das - November 7, 2004 3:52 am

except for the possibility of a lack of omega-3 fatty acids unless sufficient flaxseed oil is consumed).

 

Ivar

Ghee contains the proper fatty acids for the body in exact percentages the body contains and olive oil is all most exact. The body then supplies us with the need omega-3 fatty acids from the those required the esential polyunsaturated fats Linolenic, linoleic and arachidonic.

Hope this helps out.

Any other questions on nutrition are welcome.

Bijaya Kumara Das - November 7, 2004 3:59 am

Even in eco-villages today the vegetarian members do not know what to do with their male chickens and cows.

 

Ivar

Male Cows are meant to plow the fields and chickens for unferitlized eggs are not recommended. The birds are usually necessary to keep the insect population under control not to rely upon for a food source.

Bijaya Kumara Das - November 7, 2004 4:21 am

. It simply means that our present Vedic culture rejects things which actually had a place in the "original" Vedic culture.

 

 

 

Still, it remains an interesting question to what extent the Vedic scriptures (including the Puranas) were influenced by hallucinogen induced visions... Why did nature create these herbs?

Where is the evidence present vedic culture rejects the original.

When you sleep your body produces LSD and other very powerful drugs with more then 10 to 100 times more powerful then those taken in from the material world.

The dopamine and other narcotics are produced by the body and by taking them externally the body will take the easy way out and this is what leads to addiction.

Most stimulatents taken in cause the body to use them before using its own and when given up the body then agains trying to use its own. By habitual use of external substances the natural path ways shut down and become more and more less likely to be able to come back to normal function.

The sages and saints are some times called seminal thinkers. They are trained to direct all the natural path ways properly and are able to produce and use their natural spiritual nonhallucinogenic visions dreaming or not. This is also spoken of in the vedas eg. tantra yoga.

Such as the devotee making a sweet rice offering in his mind and testing it with his finger and it actually burned him.

NrsinghaDas - November 7, 2004 4:34 am

I agree with the post above this one by Dayal Govinda prabhu. I also heard that the soma rasa was from the higher planetary systems (probably the moon hence "soma") and that it actually increased ones duration of life by thousands of years and was not something that could be obtained by mixing chemicals in your bathtub. That the present historians who sudy "Hindu mythology" will consider this to be a discription of something akin to LSD or mushrooms is not a suprise.

As far as sastra being channeled through "visions" induced by halluicinogens, this idea is giving intoxicants be they in the mode of goodness passion or ignorance way to much value. Then again the sastra has different divisions each intended to capture a certain audiance, so tamasic scripture may aknowledge intoxicating substances as having some value to secure the faith of people who have already put their faith in these things.But ultimately none of these will bring one to the adhoksja plane and what to speak of aprakrta. If I hold my breath and then tell you "Oh I heard ringing in my ears and then saw hundreds of white sparks fizzle in my vision!!" should such a "vision" produced from material circumstances be considered as having any real value in determining the goal of life?

Madangopal - November 7, 2004 12:57 pm

If I hold my breath and then tell you "Oh I heard ringing in my ears and then saw hundreds of white sparks fizzle in my vision!!"

Don't try this at home kids.

Bhakta Ivar - November 7, 2004 4:23 pm

Fresh ghi and cold-pressed olive oil are healthy, yes, but I would still advise all devotees to consume sufficient flaxseed oil.