2

Some 'Buddhists' believe that it is okay for one to be addicted to smoking and drinking. They give examples of Chogyam Trungpa and the like who were known to indulge in these and other addictions. It might seem puritanical, but I don't agree with them, and I believe the Buddha wouldn't either. I think any kind of addiction is connected with cravings and a 'master' cannot be called one until he/she has at least mastered these cravings. I also think that as a Buddhist of any stripe, one follows the Four Noble Truths (and the 8-fold path within it) and if one does, one clearly understands the perils of unregulated cravings. And then there is the issue of creating wrong 'role models' for the followers of the 'master'. What do people on this forum think about this issue?

closed as primarily opinion-based by yuttadhammo May 1 '15 at 13:21

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Hello Jagger and welcome to Buddhism.SE. Your question appears to ask for opinions/discussion and as a Best Answer Q & A site, we are not well suited for these type of questions. We do have several questions regarding alcohol consumption among Buddhists already. If none of these answers your question, please try to rephrase your Q in a way that it can be answered objectively. Thanks! – Robin111 May 1 '15 at 12:26
  • 1
    Apparently Chogyam Trungpa taught "Tibetan Buddhism" so you might ask what role if any such might have within that tradition (i.e. beware of trying to judge it from the perspective of a different school). Also Wikipedia says that he gave up his monastic vows to work as a lay teacher so perhaps the 'vinaya' tag isn't appropriate. – ChrisW May 1 '15 at 13:36
  • 2
    @jitin People have tried to discuss the various options on meta: here and here and in the comments to this question. Putting the Q on hold isn't judging others, I hope: it's giving the OP a chance to rephrase their own question before people try to answer it. If you want to discuss (add to or influence) the policy, please add to the discussions on meta, and/or start a new topic on meta to discuss this specific question. – ChrisW May 1 '15 at 15:31
  • 2
    @jitin putting the question on hold prevents answers to a problematic question. As it stands, my assumption is that this question would solicit opinions, not expert answers. The idea is to prevent answers until the question can be reworded to fit the format of this site. If you think the question was closed in error, please vote to reopen the question. There certainly wasn't any judging of a person involved in the decision. – yuttadhammo May 3 '15 at 0:40

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.