Jump to content

Talk:Religion and drugs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First sentence?

[edit]

Guys what does the first sentence mean? It seems nonsensical. (The sentence is "Many religion may also play a significant part in the development of religion and religious views as well as in rituals.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.230.77 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Modern Research

[edit]

The last section of this page is currently "modern research" which says:

"Rick Strassman began research into the effects of N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) by administering it to 60 human volunteers. This research was conducted at the University of New Mexico's School of Medicine in Albuquerque."

As far as I can discern, this is completely and totally irrelevant to the rest of the article. How is this related to the use of drugs in religion? If it is, maybe someone could add a few sentences that explain the connection to the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fluck (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I deleted the irrelevant section.--GSchjetne (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalistic tree of life

[edit]

This image relates it to cannabis as seen on it's deletion page. (It is just an image of the paths of tiferet in the kabbalistic tree of life) I tried to post it on various other discussions and after being met with a bit of "redirection", I am here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:godislove.png (I recently renamed the file to a properly formatted name but it was merged into this name by MSJapan to make it easier to delete, fair enough)--TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I knew about this article in the first place. The freemasonry discussion page was probably the worst possible choice based on the reaction I got -didn't know I'm new. =)

--TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign this the first time -cannabis has a few side effects, be careful) =)[reply]

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) and Evangelists?

[edit]

I read somewhere (I forgot where) that LSD is so readily available because Evangelists were producing them. It said that they didn't really care about the money (which is why LSD is relatively cheap), and that they just wanted everyone to try it. It was online somewhere, so I'm not sure if it was a credible source. But if anyone else knows anything about that, maybe they should add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.146.25 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Religion and drugs with Entheogens

[edit]

How is this page different from the enormous and more detailed, and definitely more cited, wikipage entheogens? These two pages should somehow be merged, I propose. --makeswell 23:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

p.s. Does anybody really care enough to undertake this project? Is this just a dumping ground for stoners at home who need something to do with their high bodies?--makeswell 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Sorry if this isn’t how I do this correctly but I don’t see any reason to merge the two articles. Presumably, an article that is supposed to be about “Religion and Drugs” just in general simply isn’t going to be synonymous or interchangeable with an article specifically focused on ethnographic cases and traditions of psychoactives used particularly for ritualistic/religious or divinitory purposes. An article that is just broadly about “religion and drugs” is probably largely going to mostly include social and/or ethnological aspects such as idealized conceptualizations recognized as being in the form of “religious views” held by certain ethno- or socioreligious groups. Views held possibly towards a specific drug, or towards a certain conglomeration and category of drugs as well as an overview (in theory) of the potential philosophical, hermeneutical, exegetical, customary and cultural relationships and interpretations that numerous theological and culturo-religious complexes possess towards some drugs.

For example, you can probably see a decent amount of historical instances in which Western Christendom demonized different hallucinogenics; ranging from Solanaceae in the late medieval Old World, to psilocybin mushrooms in the Early modern New World during the Spanish conquest; both ethnobiological complexes demonized or condemned on religious grounds, but not on “entheogenic grounds” per say. It’s also worth perhaps discussing such nuances between how, say a religion like Islam views cannabis in contrast to how it views say alcohol; the latter which the faith explicitly forbids. But the former item, (cannabis) neither seems explicitly forbidden nor actively encouraged ritually (entheogenically) by the Quran last I checked. Tidbits or scriptural and customary niceties like this are worth their own article and appear to be numerous enough to justify general notability as well as plenty of room for reasoning with respect to a separation between the two articles.

There’s also the whole thing about Mormons and their views on psychoactives. I’m not even sure if “Mormon tea” (type of ephedra?) was ever used by the actual group itself or if it was ever considered an “entheogen” by the group, most likely not but I’ll probably check again soon. Anyways, these are just but a few potential examples off the top my head. So there’s really, potentially a LOT that can go into an article that is more broadly about “drugs and religion”, that is not specifically about substances used in actual rituals for sacral/entheogenic purposes. An content example could also be as simple as how a particular religious group at one time treated or approached another religious group’s possible utilization of a certain drug (again, think Spanish conquistadors in Mesoamerica). --anonymous 18:05, 01 June 2024 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous

Illicit Christian drug use

[edit]

What is Most Christian denominations disapprove of the use of most illicit drugs intended to mean?
Generally, the term illicit implies that something is disapproved off
Therefore, it seems to lack real meaning without identifiction of the source of the disapproval
If the source is Christianity, then does the sentence say anymore than that Christianity disapproves of some drug use, without really specifying what drugs or what manner of use? Laurel Bush (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Old comment I know, but I feel sort of compelled to just point out that, no… “illicit” does not somehow just broadly “imply disapproval” by a religion or religious group for any particular drug. There’s various substances which are legal and are still disapproved of by some religions, and vice versa. And just because something like alcohol prohibition happened in the 20th century for a limited amount of time, does not mean something like red wine suddenly lost its religious significance in Christianity or Catholicism for a decade or so just because of some government-based legislation. A religion’s view of a substance is not necessarily, nor even expected to be conformally contingent with the legal system’s view of a substance (which can vary by nation anyways or even just jurisdiction). Surprised this is really something that needs to be pointed out. 2600:1700:BE70:D820:B8A8:B3DD:A41B:60D4 (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs in Judaism

[edit]

It seems that the majority of the beginning of the section on Judaism has no citation.

Daniel Merkur's books cover drugs in judaism, such as 'The Psychedelic Sacrament'--92.236.35.88 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasson's theory of the drug origins of Buddhism

[edit]

I added a section to cover Wasson's theories about Buddhism from his book 'Persephone's Quest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern vs ancient attitudes towards drugs in Buddhism

[edit]

I have edited the text to remove the unsourced suggestions that Buddhists have been historically anti drugs, because i can find no source to back up that claim. With the exception of alcoholic beverages, there does not appear to be any prohibition or advice against the use of other psychoactive drugs in historical Buddhism, so the anti-drugs attitude of modern buddhists appears to be solely a modern (since 1970) phenomenon. Please provide sources to show if this is incorrect.--92.236.35.88 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about theology and religion - not drugs. The source you added - is R. Gordon Wasson is a botanist - not a theologian - AND his loose speculations about Buddha being drugged - well - are highly unlikely. However here with this edit you claimed TO MANY REFERENCES? Hafspajen (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
92, read WP:OR and WP:RS. and stop your WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon Wasson's book 'Persephone's Quest' which mentions the drug theory of ancient Buddhism is a published source from an academic publisher (Yale University Press). Wasson is one of the leading writers on the subject of drugs and religion, so his views are relevant and reliable and ought to be mentioned on a page about 'religion and drugs'. Therefore WP:OR and WP:RS are both satified by the section about Wasson's theory of Buddhism so i have reinstated it.--92.236.35.88 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This is about theology and religion - not drugs" The page title is 'religion and drugs' therefore the page is at least partially about the subject of drugs,therefore Wasson's views are highly relevant and should be included, since he is among the leading writers on the subject of religion and drugs and is widely recognised as such--92.236.35.88 (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is adding a source from a reputable academic book about 'religion and drugs' to an article about 'religion and drugs' considered to be disruptive editing?--92.236.35.88 (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced claim that Buddhists have been anti-drugs historically has been re-added to the article, despite lack of a source--92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scuse me, but you don't really understand what Buddhist DO. Have you ever been in a Buddhist retreat? This is about using your mind - you can't do that when you are drugged. These people are the athletic champions in concentrating and focusing - their lifes are focused around this - why would they undermine their healt and sanity with drugs? And by the way, blankind the entire section removing sourced material is just Wikipedia:Disruptive editing - but some are the master of that too, eh? Quack. Hafspajen (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for your (so far unsourced) claim that Buddhism has been anti drugs historically, or does your evidence for this claim consist purely of rhetorical questions as above?--92.236.35.88 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pāli Canon. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical? Hmmm, lets turn it around: you are making claims, so where are your sources? Here's some stuff to reflect on:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources listed above (including the Pali canon) claim that there the modern anti-drugs sentiment in buddhism has any history pre-1970. So the claim remains unsourced92.236.35.88 (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magic milk rice

[edit]

I've removed this speculation about "some psychoactive drug mixture, possibly including psilocybe or amanita muscaria mushrooms" inducing the Buddha's "enlightenment experience". The term "enlightenment experience" alone yet shows the editor's lack of understanding (see Robert Sharf, "the rhetorics of meditative experience"); to equate bodhi with psychedelic experiences is WP:FRINGE; it's addition here is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article by the same author on a reated topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasson is a respected academic writer, published by Yale university. Furthermore he is an ethnomycologist (not a botanist) which is defined as "the study of the historical uses and sociological impact of fungi" so it is relevant and applicable to this article about drugs (which includes some species of mushrooms)--92.236.35.88 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki guidelines say that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Wasson's theories area significant viewpoint from a reliable source, so they deserve a mention in this article--92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not significant. The fact that this source is published by a reliable publisher, does not make this viewpoint in itself reliable. Read Bronkhorst's "The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India", especially ch.8, or Winston King's "Theravada Meditation", if you really want to know something about the Buddha's enlightenment, what we can possibly know about it, and the means by which he "reached" his "enlightenment" (dhyana and mindfulness). Neither of them mentions mushrooms - as could be expected. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another article in the same category. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could be so kind to give a page-number, and the relevant quote from Wasson? Why does Wasson refer to this meal as "the last meal of the Buddha"? I wouldn't be surprised if you're mixing up his meal before his enlightenment, and his last meal before his para-nibbana. See also this blog. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LSD and Zen

[edit]

This edit was made because of a school project. All information used in order to create this edit was found from the article "The LSD Experience and Zen."

Zen and LSD

[edit]

I've removed this addition. The source is outdated (1971); the addition does not mention the context of 60 years of debate on the usage of LSD, the supposed similarities with (Zen) meditation, and the dangers and disadvantages of LSD-usage. What's more, that issue of the Eastern Buddhist contained several articles on "Drugs and Buddhism" : A Symposium See. So, what's the context of this specific article? Rick Fields' How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in America contains a literature overview, with a subesction on "Buddhism and the Counterculture." It may provide relevant literature. And see also Ego death#Criticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar can also be used to find sources:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Religion and drugs/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs at least reference, expansion of some sections, and inline citations. Also may not yet reflect a global view. Badbilltucker 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religion and drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found what is probably vandalism

[edit]

The final paragraph of the "Christianity section goes as thus (footnotes removed):

"The Judeo-Christian Cannabis church Temple 420 believes; People who love God and know cannabis is good medicine. Christian cannabis asks cannabis could be used in beneficial ways to support their lives? The Renown Plantation teaches that is created "good" and known to be in the Holy Anointing oil."

A Google search of "Judeo-Christian Cannabis church Temple 420" turned up only the article of this talk page as a result, so I'm guessing that the paragraph is probably vandalism. Could anyone please tell me if I should delete this?--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was resolved some time ago. Klbrain (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Possible relation between psychedelic substances and the Sacramental Bread

[edit]

Some authors have theorized that the origins of the Sacramental Bread may lie on different psychedelic substances, which can be found in early and medieval Christian art, like in bronze castings, frescoes, mosaics, illuminated manuscripts, and stained-glass windows.

Which is the appropiate place to add this information in the article? Potestade (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to place this information anywhere in the article per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It is a tiny minority view - providing any coverage at all would be overemphasis. MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is published documentation to support it (which it seems there could be), then there is no reason not to include it. --Thoric (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason not to include it is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. This isn't 'some authors', both links are the same author, who published on a non-academic press and a fringe journal. This article has sourcing problems already, lets not make it worse. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_and_drugs&oldid=1234483984"