Addictions

[M.G.]

[Edit by Ayu: I split it to a new topic. M.G. answered to this post of Adamantine:] http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 24#p269624

This is definitely veering a little off-topic, but I'd say that for myself, sugar is a much worse risk factor than alcohol; more addictive, more injurious to health - at least in the forms most commonly available in the parts of the United States where I reside - and quite possibly worse for my mental equilibrium. (To be fair, I've never been drawn to alcohol intoxication or any sort of heavy drinking, so my experience of its effects on mental equilibrium may not be those of others.)

Certainly for me, processed sugar would qualify as an intoxicant under most readings of dharma.

Honestly, I think I could make a very strong case for electronic media/entertainment consumption as being an intoxicant antithetical to Dharma. Come to think of it, it's hard for me to imagine many things more lethal to the goals of meditative practice than flashy, violent, attention span-killing movies and video games.

[Ayu]

This is definitely veering a little off-topic, but I'd say that for myself, sugar is a much worse risk factor than alcohol; more addictive, more injurious to health - at least in the forms most commonly available in the parts of the United States where I reside - and quite possibly worse for my mental equilibrium. (To be fair, I've never been drawn to alcohol intoxication or any sort of heavy drinking, so my experience of its effects on mental equilibrium may not be those of others.)

Certainly for me, processed sugar would qualify as an intoxicant under most readings of dharma.

Honestly, I think I could make a very strong case for electronic media/entertainment consumption as being an intoxicant antithetical to Dharma. Come to think of it, it's hard for me to imagine many things more lethal to the goals of meditative practice than flashy, violent, attention span-killing movies and video games.

Indeed it is better to start a new topic about these other possible addctions, because here the single topic "alcohol" is complicated enough due to the diversity of peoples affectivities.
And this other addictions are worth discussing, IMO.

Also here, again, it is an individual issue. I think, the substance or the act (like using internet or playing) is not the problem - but how it affects the mind of the certain person.
For me sugar is a very minor problem. There is no difference if I leave it or take it.

[steveb1]

Sugar and media are certainly addictive. Re: sugar, if you haven't seen it yet, I recommend the following film, which describes both sugar addiction and media-corporate involvement in keeping us addicted:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[Herbie]

Conciousness is addictive. Once it is being told that this or that is addictive it may get addicted to this idea which is conciousness itself.

[Ayu]

Conciousness is addictive. Once it is being told that this or that is addictive it may get addicted to this idea which is conciousness itself.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. What is the substantiation for your statement?

As soon as one becomes aware of his addiction, s/he has the opportunity to do something against it. This is the very first step for good, to say "I admit, I'm adicted." As long as the patient downplays his behaviour, as long as s/he is unaware about what his mind is engaged with all the time, s/he is at the mercy of this addiction.
Ask any specialist.

[BrianG]

Conciousness is addictive. Once it is being told that this or that is addictive it may get addicted to this idea which is conciousness itself.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. What is the substantiation for your statement?

Well, I'm not quite sure what the argument here is, but the cause of rebirth is clinging to ego. Sentient beings often confuse ego with life, and this leads to self-destructive behavior, such as various substance addictions, so it's self-destructive, in a bad kind of way. Buddhism targets the ego, and not one's life, so it is self-destructive, in a good kind of way.

But I'm not really sure if that answers your question or not.

Thanks,
Brian

[dialt1]

thanks for opinions it's very interesting topic

[Vasana]

I have personally found it extremely beneficial to look at addictions from more than just a 1 sided angle, which tends to be how many people go about it.

When it comes to addictions, or any experience which is knowingly or unknowingly causing afflictive emotions, I try now and de-construct it in to these different categories;

Cognitive factors
Neurological factors
Psychological factors
Physiological factors
Sociological factors

Learning about your own neuro-chemistry and physiology is fundamental when it comes to addressing any addiction, whether it's sugar,snacks, sex,porn,tv,internet, video-games, alchohol, drugs etc

It all often boils down to dopamine, the brain's reward system. When you label experience/sensation as pleasurable, dopamine is at play. When the experience is over, the imprint/memory remains. When your dopamine levels are low, you'll tend to want to re experience the same sensations that caused the previous spike, creating a loop. Breaking the loop is often difficult because having low dopamine and low serotonin will make it difficult to feel content in any situation, but when we learn that the brain actually restructures it's self on a physical and mental level (neuroplasticity ), rebuilding pathways when you change addictive habits or create new ones, cutting out harmful experiences becomes much more realistic because you know what kind of emotional reactions to expect and can be better equipped to realize that the emotion doesn't exist from it's own side, but only due to a confluence of many causes and conditions which can be altered.

You can find more indepth explanations online explaining all of the mechanisms, but it's interesting to see that models present in your own biology and neuropsychology can actually give more context to the twelve links of dependent origination.

[teddy_b]

Great! Anymore information about it?

[Simon E.]

Addictions are many and various..all are a refusal of reality.
We are most of us familiar in ourselves and others with habitual negativity..but a compulsive need for flippancy and cracking wise is just another addiction.
And its an addiction that is visible to all except the addict.

[M.G.]

Addictions are interesting. Two decades ago, one of my Buddhist teachers told me I was addicted to reading about dharma.

"Your theory is good. Your compassion is weak."

"You mean my practice is weak?"

"No " she said, "I said your compassion is weak. Stop reading dharma texts."

"Should I start reading other things instead?", said I.

"No," she replied. "That's worse."

[Johnny Dangerous]

Addictions are interesting. Two decades ago, one of my Buddhist teachers told me I was addicted to reading about dharma.

"Your theory is good. Your compassion is weak."

"You mean my practice is weak?"

"No " she said, "I said your compassion is weak. Stop reading dharma texts."

"Should I start reading other things instead?", said I.

"No," she replied. "That's worse."

ROFL
I can imagine this advice really applying to me too. Often I find myself reading Dharma texts just because I think i'm supposed to be doing it.

[Ayu]

It is especially a bad sign, if you read many different books at the same time.

[Johnny Dangerous]

It is especially a bad sign, if you read many different books at the same time.

Uh oh.. This thread has inspired me to take some of my time that's being spent on unproductive reading, and transfer it to practice time.

[Ayu]

It is especially a bad sign, if you read many different books at the same time.

Uh oh.. This thread has inspired me to take some of my time that's being spent on unproductive reading, and transfer it to practice time.

It is only problematic, if one get's confused by reading. I knew a person, who mixed all theories and philosophies together. It was like eating fish with cupcakes. The mixture was too much for his brain and the solution was to read nothing for some months.

But I think, not every habit is an addiction.

[Johnny Dangerous]

It is especially a bad sign, if you read many different books at the same time.

Uh oh.. This thread has inspired me to take some of my time that's being spent on unproductive reading, and transfer it to practice time.

It is only problematic, if one get's confused by reading. I knew a person, who mixed all theories and philosophies together. It was like eating fish with cupcakes. The mixture was too much for his brain and the solution was to read nothing for some months.

But I think, not every habit is an addiction.

Mine is pretty focused, the last year or so has been Lojong, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen books. Even within those limits though, plenty of room to get confused.

[Qing Tian]

Although there is often a pharmacological aspect to addiction I actually side with Prof. Bruce Alexander on the importance of the enriched environment. His book Global Addiction is very interesting. His work was trashed back in the day, mainly by a then US government that was out to do war on the cocaine industry. However, in more recent times Alexander's work is being re-evaluated and it seems that he has something to say after all.

If nothing else it is an interesting theory he has.

[Ayu]

Although there is often a pharmacological aspect to addiction I actually side with Prof. Bruce Alexander on the importance of the enriched environment. His book Global Addiction is very interesting. His work was trashed back in the day, mainly by a then US government that was out to do war on the cocaine industry. However, in more recent times Alexander's work is being re-evaluated and it seems that he has something to say after all.

If nothing else it is an interesting theory he has.

For sure this is advertising, but interesting anyhow:
http://www.brucekalexander.com

A new phenomenon is also the abuse of psychotrophic drugs and even chrystal meth by employees. They get addicted just to survive the competition in their jobs.