Best Of

Over the last ten years I have done a lot of letting go: news, television, novels, computer games. Recently though I was considering many of these things were distractions from the spiritual path, but they also lent my life a joyful quality, and I found I was losing my joy in life. Many things that used to give me joy, were now appearing as merely neutral. Even my morning coffee is no longer the joy it once was.

The process of letting go eventually leads one to live a life that is lean and devoid of the juicier aspects of lay life. For example, for a long time I read The Lord of the Rings every year, and I used to take great pleasure in that book, which Tolkien intended as a mythology for our times. So it now appears to me that being too drastic in letting go is also a danger on the path — we don’t have to live as monastics, even though our tendencies may take us in that direction.

I find it interesting, that when I was focussed on Buddhism all these things disappeared from my life, and now I am finding my life is too lean, and I’m seeing the need to cherish and protect the things that give me joy. That doesn’t mean I will go back to computer games, I think there are too many negatives to that, but I may broaden my reading somewhat, for starters.

Also I thought it useful to pay more attention to what gives me joy. One thing I noticed was that I feel more joyful when I am not thinking, like when I am focussed on my breath, or when I am riding my bicycle and am too engrossed in the feel of my tires on the path. When I’m busy being in the moment.

@Lionduck
I like your comment.
The body changes. Nobody has the body (or mind) of a baby or a toddler. That is gone.
As Lionduck suggests. Mind and body are interdependent.

The monkey mind that we mention on many occasions flits and flaps. We can occupy it with breath or different boredoms and techniques that @Jeffrey mentions.

Bodyscans and led meditations are very effective.
https://www.tarabrach.com/guided-meditations/

Is consciousness hygiene a type of brain washing? Tee hee!
https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/2026/mar/05/michael-pollan-book-a-world-appears-consciousness-hygiene

Further inquiry showed that often modern psychological framing around transcendent experiences think of them as something created. My approach to living these days is drawing heavily on psychology in addition to Buddhism, so I've probably been focusing more on the "soteriological" aspects, plus I'm a practical person anyway, so what it takes to make something happen matters at least as much as the isolated, pure idea.

Been playing with Chat GPT and thought to ask a question along these lines. The two points that stood out to me, and reflect my own learning.

Ontology vs. soteriology: The question mixes two angles. Ontologically (what is enlightenment?), many Buddhist traditions teach that awakening is the recognition or removal of ignorance about the true nature of mind and phenomena — it is a seeing of what already is. Soteriologically (how does one become enlightened?), awakening happens through a causal process: ethical conduct, meditation, wisdom — i.e., conditions and effort.

And then the Madhyamika understanding of emptiness and its relation to enlightenment. This is the tradition I developed my sense of Buddhism in.

Madhyamaka: Emphasizes emptiness. Enlightenment is the experiential realization that all phenomena lack inherent existence. This realization is not a “thing” that’s created; it’s a correct cognition that arises when ignorance ceases.

Practical summary: Buddhism generally resists the notion that enlightenment is an invention or addition to a self. It’s better described as the cessation of ignorance and the direct realization (revelation) of reality — a change that occurs through causes and conditions, not creation ex nihilo. The upshot for practice is the same either way: cultivate the conditions (ethics, meditation, wisdom) that allow the revealing to occur.