7 ms·

Buddhist Temple Left Without Monks After They All Test Positive for Meth

63 points by Anon84 4y ago

rossdavidh 4y ago
The cycle of craving leading to pursuit leading to more craving, it comes even for the monks. These four will have a Mara of a time working off the karma from this.
LoganDark 4y ago
Meth is very addictive stuff. Not only does it give you a dopamine high, which directly excites the brain's reward system, but if you take too much, it can permanently damage dopamine receptors, enough that you'll never be the same as before. (IIRC, it's a dopamine reuptake inhibitor that can also turn into a dopamine release agent at high doses. The release agent is the dangerous part.) When I first started my ADHD medication (dextroamphetamine), I had a dopamine high for around a week, and that helped me understand why people get so addicted.
- spiralx 4y ago
  Good to clarify that it's only methamphetamine that is neurotoxic, the dextroamphetamine used for ADHD medication is not. And meth turns out to have several mechanisms through which it is neurotoxic, seems to just generally be a very reactive molecule: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457172/
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    > Good to clarify that it's only methamphetamine that is neurotoxic, the dextroamphetamine used for ADHD medication is not. Interesting, actually. I've gotten conflicting info on this before. I've been told by my doctor that he'll happily raise my dosage over time to meet tolerance, but been told by others that developing this tolerance is Bad(TM) because I'd reach neurotoxic levels, and the only way to use stimulants is to constantly take week- or month-long breaks, entirely defeating the purpose of trying to treat ADHD. My entire problem is that I have periods of being able to do stuff but then long periods of not being able to do anything. The periods of not being able to do anything are the problem! Do you have any opinion on this?
    - spiralx 4y ago
      You're on daily dexamphetamine right? I don't really have any experience in taking that medicinally although I spent a decade or so where for good chunks of it I was taking speed every day to go to work, consistently enough to have some sense of what being on Adderall would be like. And I went through phases of manic production and other phases where I just did lots of stuff but wasn't productive. When it worked and made me productive it was when I had a concrete goal to work towards, and the other kicker about ADHD is that you have deficits that make future goal-directed behaviour really hard - in working memory, in the mind's eye and in the mind's theatre, meaning you can't just "imagine" what the end goal would look like and use that as a thing to work towards. ADHD makes us time blind and that robs us of motivation to do things. But that aside the urgency and focus that dexamphetamine provide is tiring over long periods I think, which is why I've not sought it out as a medication option and settled on slow-release methylphenidate - I get a tiny dopamine kick in the morning after taking them, which is enough to wake my mind up from hibernation in time for the stand-up, and it's otherwise... just better than when I'm not on it? It's been almost 15 years now and it still helps, tolerance is when your brain adapts to the medication and that's actually what I want, right? Not sure if any of that was helpful or not, but that's roughly how I see things.
      - LoganDark 4y ago
        > You're on daily dexamphetamine right? Haven't been able to get my new prescription yet (ran out yesterday) but other than that, I take 30mg/day dexedrine XR. > ADHD makes us time blind and that robs us of motivation to do things. That's one way to put it. I like to put it as "your own brain will stop listening to you", because it will. No matter how much you yell and plead at yourself to do something, it won't happen if your brain just won't let you. > But that aside the urgency and focus that dexamphetamine provide is tiring over long periods I think, which is why I've not sought it out as a medication option and settled on slow-release methylphenidate I've consistently been recommended ritalin/methylphenidate as something to try, I do plan on trying it at some point but dexedrine helps me so much I don't think I need to go to anything else. I still want to try methylphenidate though to see how it is. > tolerance is when your brain adapts to the medication and that's actually what I want, right? Probably~ I was somewhat high for 4-5 days at first but it was actually incredibly distracting because I would do crazy stuff like fall over in the shower because it felt too good for me to focus. That shower was just repaired, I nearly broke it again. > Not sure if any of that was helpful or not, but that's roughly how I see things. Always nice hearing someone else's viewpoint~
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  How exactly does one permanently damage dopamine receptors? If you have any literature I would be happy to read it, as someone in the field this isn't something I've heard of before.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  My first dose of dextro made me feel a sense of elation I hadn't felt since before I was a teen. It was nice in a way, but incredibly eerie too. My brain immediately worked far better than usual as well, but I couldn't direct it. I could socialize more easily, go about tasks more easily, but I was dramatically less cognizant of what I was doing and why. That part was even worse. I can't imagine taking a proper dose of something like meth and feeling like that * 1000. I guess it might be nice in the strange way that things like meth are "nice", but... It's literally insanity. The worst part of ADHD meds is the part where I do things without needing to think about it. I can go on autopilot and just get stuff done... But I actually don't have a good grasp on the what and why part. My brain is just like "alright, do do do!". Externally it probably looks pretty unremarkable. Internally it's quite unsettling, though useful at times.
  - spiralx 4y ago
    > My brain immediately worked far better than usual as well, but I couldn't direct it. I could socialize more easily, go about tasks more easily, but I was dramatically less cognizant of what I was doing and why. That part was even worse. It provides a laser-focus on whatever goal is in front of you, but if something catches your attention despite that then that laser-focus gets pointed towards the new thing and whatever it was you were in the middle of is now totally out of mind. You definitely need to realise this if you want to make effective use of amphetamines to improve focus, otherwise you end up with an unconsolidated melange of half-baked projects and aborted deep-dives :) > The worst part of ADHD meds is the part where I do things without needing to think about it. I can go on autopilot and just get stuff done... But I actually don't have a good grasp on the what and why part. My brain is just like "alright, do do do!". Externally it probably looks pretty unremarkable. Internally it's quite unsettling, though useful at times. For me the best part of ADHD medication was waking up in the morning and "just remembering" the thing I'd thought of before I went to sleep and had tagged as "I'll think about it in the morning". Our brains are designed to operate things without us having to consciously think about them and that's a good thing as consciousness is a scarce resource, especially for those of us who have to operate under ADHD's working memory and self-soothing deficits. Having parts of your brain start working as intended is pretty eerie in an existential way that I had to work through in my own head, but I think framing the autopilot positively is useful. I mean it's amazing how little conscious thought is required to get through the day if you think about it :)
ydlr 4y ago
> ...leaving the temple without holy men and raising concerns among local worshippers that they wouldn’t be able to conduct “merit-making”—that is, donating food to monks as a good deed. Curious. I wonder if giving food to actual poor people instead of profession mendicants would still count as a good deed.
- kyawzazaw 4y ago
  Yes, giving food to actual people who would need it would count as good deed.
- greatgib 4y ago
  This looks like a kind of cargo cult to me. Sadly it shows that people are doing things because they expect some form of reward in this life or in a further one instead of for the core value.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I think the critical bit is that the good deed is in support of the Sangha. The ironic part of the villager’s response is in thinking that simply giving food will support the Sangha. If the local monks are taking meth, donations are not likely to help make things better. This looks like a form of Tanha - the villagers are so attached to their ideas of how a Sangha _should_ be supported, that they are disappointed when they cannot donate to monks who need much more than monetary donations. Edit: I’d also criticise the description of monks as professional mendicants. In many places the local monks provide education services or council locals in a similar way to a western psychologist. They aren’t just resource sponges, they can provide important community services in places that would otherwise go without. Thus I think of them more as professionals who beg. That is excluding Monks in the article who are obviously LARPing.
  - rossdavidh 4y ago
    Well, the idea is that there is a beneficial impact on the giver. In modern Western terms, it would be the equivalent of thinking that the act of giving to monks has a positive impact on your self-image and your idea of how to relate to wealth and the community, which is true even if it turns out that, for example, due to an accident of some sort after you leave the food has to be thrown out. Of course, there is usually an assumption that supporting a monk in their holy work also has a beneficial effect, and if they're all meth-addicts that might not be the case, but there is some non-zero benefit to the giver, regardless.
sethd 4y ago
The weird part of the article for me was learning that the police in Thailand can randomly drug test monks or does that apply to anyone?
- refurb 4y ago
  Pretty common to do drug tests in SE Asia. I know Vietnam, Singapore will also do it. A bunch of police enter a club, seize any drugs they find and then drug test everyone. It's a crime to test positive on a drug test.
  - kyawzazaw 4y ago
    Not common to drug test in Myanmar.
  - andrewinardeer 4y ago
    The only kind of test one would want to fail.
    - vgb2k18 4y ago
      Testing positive is a fail :| One would also want negative results for aids, Covid, herpes, and bunch of others!
aaron695 4y ago
Monks are mostly young men doing a gap year. It's not like a priest in training. The poorer they are the more likely to send some time, kids needing food or 20 years olds adding to their resume. Thailand is now an SE Asian Amsterdam for pot - https://travelhappy.info/cannabis-legal-in-thailand/ https://travelhappy.info/cannabis-legal-in-thailand/ It's interesting people in the region seem to chose Meth/Yaba over pot. Always been the case. Not sure why. Perhaps without the meth is evil ads, a pill is easier.
a9h74j 4y ago
As is commonly known, the Buddha taught that there is the high path, the middle path, and the meth path.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  You're onto something: "middle path" -> "mid-path" -> "mipath" -> "meth"
korginator 4y ago
It's very common for young men to spend a year or two at a monastery in Thailand, and this is indeed quite respected there. These are young men in their teens and twenties, with the same emotions, feelings, temptations, and even susceptibility to influence as other young men of their age. I'm quite surprised though at the abbot being busted so easily (maybe he should have been smarter?), they are supposed to be disciplined senior monks who serve as teachers and mentors and set an example for moral conduct according to the Vinaya. In fact, the fifth of the basic five precepts for lay-people ("Sura meraya majja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami") which is in fact voluntary, explicitly talks about refraining from any intoxicants (drugs, alcohol) that may cloud the mind. Every novice monk or monk-in-training must compulsorily conform to this precept, let alone the senior monks and the abbot. It is also interesting how the other senior monk Luang Po Tuanchai mentioned in the article made claims about powers of omniscience and was driving around drunk. Making such claims [1] is in fact one of the four *disrobing offences* in the Theravada school followed in Thailand and in other countries. Note that the appellation "Luang Po" or "Luang Por", sort of like "venerable father" is typically used for senior monks who command significant respect and veneration. Seeing such a senior monk fall in this way obviously hurts the sangha (monastic community) and their relationship with the lay-people. Thai people in general respect and venerate the monastic community, and I can see how such behaviours by even senior monks and abbots start to erode faith and trust, and start to cause schisms within the faith itself. These incidents are not surprising though. Even in the past few hundred years in Thailand, monks like Acariya Mun Bhuridatta Thera [2], Acariya Mahā Boowa Ñānasampanno [3], Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu [4], Ajahn Chah Bodhiñāṇathera [5], and several others not just clearly saw the cracks and problems with the traditional Buddhist structures and administration, but actually set out to do something about it and they did this in very powerful ways. These types of incidents have been happening on record right from the early days of the Sangha and even during Sakyamuni's (Buddha's) time, which is why the monastic rules for monks and the sangha were gradually developed and refined into a very comprehensive, clear and unambiguous structure [6] [7], not just for the sake of "making up rules" but to ensure that the sangha and the lay-community would co-exist in harmony and support each other. These rules are __supposed to be__ followed by all monastics, though some centres appear to ignore them when it suits them. [1] https://bswa.org/teaching/vinaya-four-disrobing-offences/ https://bswa.org/teaching/vinaya-four-disrobing-offences/ [2] https://buddho.org/about-the-author/ajahn-mun/ https://buddho.org/about-the-author/ajahn-mun/ [3] https://forestdhamma.org/about/ajaan-maha-boowa/ https://forestdhamma.org/about/ajaan-maha-boowa/ [4] https://www.suanmokkh.org/buddhadasa https://www.suanmokkh.org/buddhadasa [5] https://ajahnchah.org/ https://ajahnchah.org/ [6] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati-intro.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati... [7] https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html#bmc https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html#bmc
kilgnad 4y ago
[flagged]
- korginator 4y ago
  You are somewhat right. Right from the earliest days, intoxicants were disallowed in any form even for lay-people taking refuge in the faith, this is in fact the fifth of the five precepts that __every__ person who's taken refuge in the faith is supposed to observe, not just monks or monastics. Also, minor nit-pick, this was a temple and not a monastery. At the end of the day, these people are human, susceptible to temptation, and they succumbed, just as others have in any other community, faith, or tradition. It's not getting any better, now with the situation in Myanmar. There's a much larger amount of cheap drugs flooding the markets in SE Asia from Myanmar, and meth is available for the equivalent of $1.40 a hit [1] [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-63792923 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-63792923
- yunohn 4y ago
  > What does a whole monastery doing meth say about Buddhism? I’m not Buddhist, but your insinuation is ridiculous…
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    I'm sorry it's not. It's a valid question. Like when you see a Catholic priest molesting kids you have to be absolutely insane to not question the core foundations of the Catholic church if it happens regularly. This desire to be polite and politically correct. This desire to not step on anyone's toes out of respect. If it prevents you from asking critical questions then I'm sorry, it's a stupid philosophy and a stupid way of thinking. You need to constantly question everything. It's like the drug war in the US. If drug use increased you have to be next level insane not to question the drug war itself. So I bring up the question again. Why are a bunch Buddhists doing meth? What is it about that temple or city or location that makes them do meth? Buddhism is suppose to prevent suffering. What drove these people to do meth? These are absolutely valid questions to ask and it is completely valid to insinuate that Buddhism is ineffective at preventing the the conditions it claims to prevent (suffering). Why are there less people doing meth in say a rich upper class suburb in say the US then this Buddhist temple? For what purpose do these people choose to live at the temple and become monks? It's a contradictory choice to become a monk and do meth. The obvious thing to do here is to ADDRESS the CONTRADICTION. The contradiction itself is the reason why this article is on the front page. Why don't I see a headline "all residents in a crack house found to be doing meth"? None of these questions have been fully answered, and they never will be if people like you get there way.

63 points by Anon84 4y ago

The cycle of craving leading to pursuit leading to more craving, it comes even for the monks. These four will have a Mara of a time working off the karma from this.

LoganDark 4y ago

Meth is very addictive stuff. Not only does it give you a dopamine high, which directly excites the brain's reward system, but if you take too much, it can permanently damage dopamine receptors, enough that you'll never be the same as before. (IIRC, it's a dopamine reuptake inhibitor that can also turn into a dopamine release agent at high doses. The release agent is the dangerous part.) When I first started my ADHD medication (dextroamphetamine), I had a dopamine high for around a week, and that helped me understand why people get so addicted.

spiralx 4y ago
Good to clarify that it's only methamphetamine that is neurotoxic, the dextroamphetamine used for ADHD medication is not. And meth turns out to have several mechanisms through which it is neurotoxic, seems to just generally be a very reactive molecule: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457172/
- LoganDark 4y ago
  > Good to clarify that it's only methamphetamine that is neurotoxic, the dextroamphetamine used for ADHD medication is not. Interesting, actually. I've gotten conflicting info on this before. I've been told by my doctor that he'll happily raise my dosage over time to meet tolerance, but been told by others that developing this tolerance is Bad(TM) because I'd reach neurotoxic levels, and the only way to use stimulants is to constantly take week- or month-long breaks, entirely defeating the purpose of trying to treat ADHD. My entire problem is that I have periods of being able to do stuff but then long periods of not being able to do anything. The periods of not being able to do anything are the problem! Do you have any opinion on this?
  - spiralx 4y ago
    You're on daily dexamphetamine right? I don't really have any experience in taking that medicinally although I spent a decade or so where for good chunks of it I was taking speed every day to go to work, consistently enough to have some sense of what being on Adderall would be like. And I went through phases of manic production and other phases where I just did lots of stuff but wasn't productive. When it worked and made me productive it was when I had a concrete goal to work towards, and the other kicker about ADHD is that you have deficits that make future goal-directed behaviour really hard - in working memory, in the mind's eye and in the mind's theatre, meaning you can't just "imagine" what the end goal would look like and use that as a thing to work towards. ADHD makes us time blind and that robs us of motivation to do things. But that aside the urgency and focus that dexamphetamine provide is tiring over long periods I think, which is why I've not sought it out as a medication option and settled on slow-release methylphenidate - I get a tiny dopamine kick in the morning after taking them, which is enough to wake my mind up from hibernation in time for the stand-up, and it's otherwise... just better than when I'm not on it? It's been almost 15 years now and it still helps, tolerance is when your brain adapts to the medication and that's actually what I want, right? Not sure if any of that was helpful or not, but that's roughly how I see things.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      > You're on daily dexamphetamine right? Haven't been able to get my new prescription yet (ran out yesterday) but other than that, I take 30mg/day dexedrine XR. > ADHD makes us time blind and that robs us of motivation to do things. That's one way to put it. I like to put it as "your own brain will stop listening to you", because it will. No matter how much you yell and plead at yourself to do something, it won't happen if your brain just won't let you. > But that aside the urgency and focus that dexamphetamine provide is tiring over long periods I think, which is why I've not sought it out as a medication option and settled on slow-release methylphenidate I've consistently been recommended ritalin/methylphenidate as something to try, I do plan on trying it at some point but dexedrine helps me so much I don't think I need to go to anything else. I still want to try methylphenidate though to see how it is. > tolerance is when your brain adapts to the medication and that's actually what I want, right? Probably~ I was somewhat high for 4-5 days at first but it was actually incredibly distracting because I would do crazy stuff like fall over in the shower because it felt too good for me to focus. That shower was just repaired, I nearly broke it again. > Not sure if any of that was helpful or not, but that's roughly how I see things. Always nice hearing someone else's viewpoint~
kevviiinn 4y ago
How exactly does one permanently damage dopamine receptors? If you have any literature I would be happy to read it, as someone in the field this isn't something I've heard of before.
steve_adams_86 4y ago
My first dose of dextro made me feel a sense of elation I hadn't felt since before I was a teen. It was nice in a way, but incredibly eerie too. My brain immediately worked far better than usual as well, but I couldn't direct it. I could socialize more easily, go about tasks more easily, but I was dramatically less cognizant of what I was doing and why. That part was even worse. I can't imagine taking a proper dose of something like meth and feeling like that * 1000. I guess it might be nice in the strange way that things like meth are "nice", but... It's literally insanity. The worst part of ADHD meds is the part where I do things without needing to think about it. I can go on autopilot and just get stuff done... But I actually don't have a good grasp on the what and why part. My brain is just like "alright, do do do!". Externally it probably looks pretty unremarkable. Internally it's quite unsettling, though useful at times.
- spiralx 4y ago
  > My brain immediately worked far better than usual as well, but I couldn't direct it. I could socialize more easily, go about tasks more easily, but I was dramatically less cognizant of what I was doing and why. That part was even worse. It provides a laser-focus on whatever goal is in front of you, but if something catches your attention despite that then that laser-focus gets pointed towards the new thing and whatever it was you were in the middle of is now totally out of mind. You definitely need to realise this if you want to make effective use of amphetamines to improve focus, otherwise you end up with an unconsolidated melange of half-baked projects and aborted deep-dives :) > The worst part of ADHD meds is the part where I do things without needing to think about it. I can go on autopilot and just get stuff done... But I actually don't have a good grasp on the what and why part. My brain is just like "alright, do do do!". Externally it probably looks pretty unremarkable. Internally it's quite unsettling, though useful at times. For me the best part of ADHD medication was waking up in the morning and "just remembering" the thing I'd thought of before I went to sleep and had tagged as "I'll think about it in the morning". Our brains are designed to operate things without us having to consciously think about them and that's a good thing as consciousness is a scarce resource, especially for those of us who have to operate under ADHD's working memory and self-soothing deficits. Having parts of your brain start working as intended is pretty eerie in an existential way that I had to work through in my own head, but I think framing the autopilot positively is useful. I mean it's amazing how little conscious thought is required to get through the day if you think about it :)

ydlr 4y ago

> ...leaving the temple without holy men and raising concerns among local worshippers that they wouldn’t be able to conduct “merit-making”—that is, donating food to monks as a good deed. Curious. I wonder if giving food to actual poor people instead of profession mendicants would still count as a good deed.

kyawzazaw 4y ago
Yes, giving food to actual people who would need it would count as good deed.
greatgib 4y ago
This looks like a kind of cargo cult to me. Sadly it shows that people are doing things because they expect some form of reward in this life or in a further one instead of for the core value.
brutusborn 4y ago
I think the critical bit is that the good deed is in support of the Sangha. The ironic part of the villager’s response is in thinking that simply giving food will support the Sangha. If the local monks are taking meth, donations are not likely to help make things better. This looks like a form of Tanha - the villagers are so attached to their ideas of how a Sangha _should_ be supported, that they are disappointed when they cannot donate to monks who need much more than monetary donations. Edit: I’d also criticise the description of monks as professional mendicants. In many places the local monks provide education services or council locals in a similar way to a western psychologist. They aren’t just resource sponges, they can provide important community services in places that would otherwise go without. Thus I think of them more as professionals who beg. That is excluding Monks in the article who are obviously LARPing.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  Well, the idea is that there is a beneficial impact on the giver. In modern Western terms, it would be the equivalent of thinking that the act of giving to monks has a positive impact on your self-image and your idea of how to relate to wealth and the community, which is true even if it turns out that, for example, due to an accident of some sort after you leave the food has to be thrown out. Of course, there is usually an assumption that supporting a monk in their holy work also has a beneficial effect, and if they're all meth-addicts that might not be the case, but there is some non-zero benefit to the giver, regardless.

sethd 4y ago

The weird part of the article for me was learning that the police in Thailand can randomly drug test monks or does that apply to anyone?

refurb 4y ago
Pretty common to do drug tests in SE Asia. I know Vietnam, Singapore will also do it. A bunch of police enter a club, seize any drugs they find and then drug test everyone. It's a crime to test positive on a drug test.
- kyawzazaw 4y ago
  Not common to drug test in Myanmar.
- andrewinardeer 4y ago
  The only kind of test one would want to fail.
  - vgb2k18 4y ago
    Testing positive is a fail :| One would also want negative results for aids, Covid, herpes, and bunch of others!

aaron695 4y ago

Monks are mostly young men doing a gap year. It's not like a priest in training. The poorer they are the more likely to send some time, kids needing food or 20 years olds adding to their resume. Thailand is now an SE Asian Amsterdam for pot - https://travelhappy.info/cannabis-legal-in-thailand/ https://travelhappy.info/cannabis-legal-in-thailand/ It's interesting people in the region seem to chose Meth/Yaba over pot. Always been the case. Not sure why. Perhaps without the meth is evil ads, a pill is easier.

a9h74j 4y ago

As is commonly known, the Buddha taught that there is the high path, the middle path, and the meth path.

rossdavidh 4y ago
You're onto something: "middle path" -> "mid-path" -> "mipath" -> "meth"

korginator 4y ago

It's very common for young men to spend a year or two at a monastery in Thailand, and this is indeed quite respected there. These are young men in their teens and twenties, with the same emotions, feelings, temptations, and even susceptibility to influence as other young men of their age. I'm quite surprised though at the abbot being busted so easily (maybe he should have been smarter?), they are supposed to be disciplined senior monks who serve as teachers and mentors and set an example for moral conduct according to the Vinaya. In fact, the fifth of the basic five precepts for lay-people ("Sura meraya majja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami") which is in fact voluntary, explicitly talks about refraining from any intoxicants (drugs, alcohol) that may cloud the mind. Every novice monk or monk-in-training must compulsorily conform to this precept, let alone the senior monks and the abbot. It is also interesting how the other senior monk Luang Po Tuanchai mentioned in the article made claims about powers of omniscience and was driving around drunk. Making such claims [1] is in fact one of the four *disrobing offences* in the Theravada school followed in Thailand and in other countries. Note that the appellation "Luang Po" or "Luang Por", sort of like "venerable father" is typically used for senior monks who command significant respect and veneration. Seeing such a senior monk fall in this way obviously hurts the sangha (monastic community) and their relationship with the lay-people. Thai people in general respect and venerate the monastic community, and I can see how such behaviours by even senior monks and abbots start to erode faith and trust, and start to cause schisms within the faith itself. These incidents are not surprising though. Even in the past few hundred years in Thailand, monks like Acariya Mun Bhuridatta Thera [2], Acariya Mahā Boowa Ñānasampanno [3], Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu [4], Ajahn Chah Bodhiñāṇathera [5], and several others not just clearly saw the cracks and problems with the traditional Buddhist structures and administration, but actually set out to do something about it and they did this in very powerful ways. These types of incidents have been happening on record right from the early days of the Sangha and even during Sakyamuni's (Buddha's) time, which is why the monastic rules for monks and the sangha were gradually developed and refined into a very comprehensive, clear and unambiguous structure [6] [7], not just for the sake of "making up rules" but to ensure that the sangha and the lay-community would co-exist in harmony and support each other. These rules are __supposed to be__ followed by all monastics, though some centres appear to ignore them when it suits them. [1] https://bswa.org/teaching/vinaya-four-disrobing-offences/ https://bswa.org/teaching/vinaya-four-disrobing-offences/ [2] https://buddho.org/about-the-author/ajahn-mun/ https://buddho.org/about-the-author/ajahn-mun/ [3] https://forestdhamma.org/about/ajaan-maha-boowa/ https://forestdhamma.org/about/ajaan-maha-boowa/ [4] https://www.suanmokkh.org/buddhadasa https://www.suanmokkh.org/buddhadasa [5] https://ajahnchah.org/ https://ajahnchah.org/ [6] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati-intro.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati... [7] https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html#bmc https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html#bmc

kilgnad 4y ago

[flagged]

korginator 4y ago
You are somewhat right. Right from the earliest days, intoxicants were disallowed in any form even for lay-people taking refuge in the faith, this is in fact the fifth of the five precepts that __every__ person who's taken refuge in the faith is supposed to observe, not just monks or monastics. Also, minor nit-pick, this was a temple and not a monastery. At the end of the day, these people are human, susceptible to temptation, and they succumbed, just as others have in any other community, faith, or tradition. It's not getting any better, now with the situation in Myanmar. There's a much larger amount of cheap drugs flooding the markets in SE Asia from Myanmar, and meth is available for the equivalent of $1.40 a hit [1] [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-63792923 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-63792923
yunohn 4y ago
> What does a whole monastery doing meth say about Buddhism? I’m not Buddhist, but your insinuation is ridiculous…
- kilgnad 4y ago
  I'm sorry it's not. It's a valid question. Like when you see a Catholic priest molesting kids you have to be absolutely insane to not question the core foundations of the Catholic church if it happens regularly. This desire to be polite and politically correct. This desire to not step on anyone's toes out of respect. If it prevents you from asking critical questions then I'm sorry, it's a stupid philosophy and a stupid way of thinking. You need to constantly question everything. It's like the drug war in the US. If drug use increased you have to be next level insane not to question the drug war itself. So I bring up the question again. Why are a bunch Buddhists doing meth? What is it about that temple or city or location that makes them do meth? Buddhism is suppose to prevent suffering. What drove these people to do meth? These are absolutely valid questions to ask and it is completely valid to insinuate that Buddhism is ineffective at preventing the the conditions it claims to prevent (suffering). Why are there less people doing meth in say a rich upper class suburb in say the US then this Buddhist temple? For what purpose do these people choose to live at the temple and become monks? It's a contradictory choice to become a monk and do meth. The obvious thing to do here is to ADDRESS the CONTRADICTION. The contradiction itself is the reason why this article is on the front page. Why don't I see a headline "all residents in a crack house found to be doing meth"? None of these questions have been fully answered, and they never will be if people like you get there way.