Did the Buddha Prohibit the Consumption of Drugs?

A Philological Reassessment of Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhāna in the Dīgha Nikāya

Alexander Duncan

Abstract

The Fifth Precept is commonly rendered in English as a prohibition against “intoxicating drinks and drugs,” suggesting an expansive moral injunction encompassing modern recreational substances. However, a close philological analysis of the canonical Pāli, particularly the term surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhāna, reveals no basis for the inclusion of “drugs” in the classical Buddhist ethical framework. This paper re-evaluates standard translations of the Dīgha Nikāya, focusing on suttas 17, 31, and 32, and argues that contemporary interpolations such as “sloth-producing drugs” reflect modern sensibilities rather than early Buddhist intent.

1. Introduction

In the Dīgha Nikāya of the Pāli Canon, the Buddha articulates a fivefold ethical code for lay followers, later expanded in some texts by the inclusion of additional restraints. In DN 17 Mahāsudassana Sutta, the Buddha recounts:

“Do not take life. Do not take what is not given. Do not commit sexual misconduct. Do not tell lies. Do not drink strong drink. Be moderate in eating.”
(DN 17.1.9, ii.175, Walshe, 1995)

However, in DN 32 Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, Maurice Walshe’s English rendering is more expansive:

“… refraining from taking life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from lying speech, and from strong drink and sloth-producing drugs.”
(DN 32.2)

Walshe’s translation of “sloth-producing drugs” also appears in DN 31 Siṅgāla Sutta (31.7, iii.183), where the Buddha identifies six “ways of wasting one’s wealth.” This phrase does not appear in the earlier Rhys Davids translation, which more conservatively renders the same passages with terms like “intoxicating liquors” or “maddening drink.” This discrepancy raises an important textual question: does the Pāli Canon justify a translation that includes “drugs” at all?

2. The Key Phrase: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhāna

The phrase in question appears as:

Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānānuyogo kho, gahapatiputta, bhogānaṃ apāyamukhaṃ
(DN 31.7; CS 3.8.247)

The elements of this compound are as follows:

• surā (m): distilled liquor, usually equated with strong spirits.
• meraya (nt): fermented liquor, such as wine or rum.
• majja (nt): intoxicant or liquor, often a catch-all term for alcoholic drinks.
• pamādaṭṭhāna (nt): a basis or ground (ṭṭhāna) for negligence or heedlessness (pamāda).
• anuyoga (m): habitual indulgence or engagement in a pursuit.

The entire compound thus translates to: “habitual indulgence in intoxicating liquors that are a basis for negligence.”

Notably, there is no reference to plant-based psychotropics, opiates, or hallucinogens. The use of majja is often mistaken for a general term for intoxicants, but its dictionary definitions (PED, CPED) root it firmly in the semantic field of alcoholic beverages.

3. Modern Interpolations and Translational Overreach

Walshe’s use of the phrase “sloth-producing drugs” is an interpretive elaboration, possibly influenced by modern attitudes toward recreational drug use. However, this rendering exceeds the textual evidence. The original Pāli offers a tripartite formula—surā, meraya, and majja—which parallels the English idiom “beer, wine, and spirits.” Nowhere does the Buddha refer to osadhi (medicinal herbs) or vāṇa (intoxicants by inhalation) in these ethical contexts.

Moreover, in DN 31, the Buddha categorizes alcohol use as a threat to one’s wealth and social standing—not necessarily as a mortal sin or spiritual hindrance of the same calibre as murder or false speech. His later restriction on monastic consumption of alcohol arose pragmatically, following the embarrassment caused by Ven. Sāgata becoming intoxicated during a famine (Vinaya Piṭaka, Mahāvagga VI.23.2).

4. Textual Comparisons: Rhys Davids vs. Walshe

In Rhys Davids’ early 20th-century translation (Dialogues of the Buddha, Part III, 1921), the relevant passage is rendered as:

“… from intoxicating liquors, the cause of sloth.”

In contrast, Walshe introduces modern drug terminology:

“… from strong drink and sloth-producing drugs.”

While Walshe’s rendering may have pastoral or didactic merit in contemporary contexts, it is philologically unjustified. The term majja simply does not connote “drugs” in Pāli, and its repeated use in medical contexts (e.g., anaesthetics or antiseptics) underlines its pre-modern reference frame.

5. Interpretive and Doctrinal Implications

The doctrinal objection in Buddhism is not to alcohol or drugs per se, but to pamāda—heedlessness, negligence, or loss of self-possession. Thus, the precept is ultimately pragmatic: a practitioner should refrain from anything that causes delusion or obstructs mindfulness.

In this context, one may distinguish between:

• Medicinal use, which the Buddha explicitly permitted (e.g., use of ghee, oils, honey, fermented tonics, etc.);
• Ritual use, as seen in later Tantric traditions where controlled consumption is ritualized;
• Recreational abuse, which undermines the Eightfold Path and is categorically discouraged.

6. Conclusion

There is no lexical or contextual evidence in the Pāli Canon to support the inclusion of “drugs” in the traditional formulation of the Fifth Precept. The canonical compound surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhāna unambiguously refers to alcoholic beverages, not psychoactive substances broadly conceived. While later traditions and translators may expand the precept in line with evolving social concerns, fidelity to the source texts requires resisting anachronistic interpolations.

Bibliography

• Rhys Davids, T.W. and C.A.F. (1921). Dialogues of the Buddha: Translated from the Pali of the Dīgha Nikāya, Part III. London: Pali Text Society.
• Walshe, Maurice (1995). The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
• Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. Rhys Davids & William Stede (1921–25).
• Chattha Saṅgāyana Tipiṭaka (6th Council Edition). http://www.tipitaka.org